Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural references in Pokémon
Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. No actual references or sources. No verifiability. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before we start, let's get a few things straight:
 * The last time it was put up for AfD was November. No concerns about short time spans between AfDs this time around, please.
 * Deleting this will not cause the sudden existence of multiple shit articles. This is not a merge target.
 * There is no verifiability whatsoever, and this will not improve with time.
 * Every time it has been up for AfD, there was no consensus, with many keeps relating to things irrelevant to the actual article: Pokémon Hydra fear, and time spans between AfDs that didn't satisfy some.
 * My nomination counts as a delete vote. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Previous AFDs: no consensus, no consensus, no consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Before citing the previous AFDs (which I'll link when I track them all down), please note that this list has not significantly improved after each of these AFDs, and continues to attract unsourced claims, unencyclopedic trivia, and original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Crossmr 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is certainly an indiscriminate collection of information, and there is a complete lack or sources. Not exactly OR, but it's right on the border. --djrobgordon 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, and given the... er, enthusiasm... that Pokemon contributors devote to their subject, probably original research, into a topic I have to think is inherently crufty. Opabinia regalis 05:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Unsourced, and looks like original research (thus failing WP:NOR). --Coredesat 08:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate plus seems to be largely original research. --Charlesknight 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GassyGuy 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pokecruft: Gotta Delete Em All. -- GWO
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR as stated by Coredesat.--Isotope23 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom with prejudice, and a huzzah! to Apostrophe for such a well-formed nomination.   Proto    ||    type    13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, by WP:NOT, WP:NOR... and just plain old commonsense. There must be a pokepedia somewhere... go there with this stuff. It's yet another "I thought up some criteria relating to my favourite TV show, and then watched every episode with a pen and paper noting stuff down, cross-referenced it with similarly named/looking things in popular culture... but it's not original research or anything. The episodes are just primary sources." Bollocks. - Motor (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero references, carries a great deal of original research and a list which doesn't particuarly add any significant gains to the subject in question.--Auger Martel 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ba-da-ba-da-ba-da-ba-da. Nyyyyyyyyyyyyong...KABLOOEY!!!! as per nom Bwithh 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it a chance It can't all be orignal research because some info is from TV.com. CoolKatt number 99999 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I even found some other sources. CoolKatt number 99999 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, it's been given a chance three times over. It's pretty clear that it's not going to improve over time. Tv.com and Bulbpedia shouldn't even count as they're also composed of user-sumbitted information. I've removed them anyway, since you don't even point out what they're suppsoed to support, and I'm not going to expect people to look through massive websites for verification. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ONE MORE CHANCE. It contains useful info. You need to learn, it's been up for AFD several times, just give up. CoolKatt number 99999 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should be giving up when you're the only one who has voted to keep. Um. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aposotrophe's nom and Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: But of course. I'm surprised there have been previous attempts to delete this without resulting consensus. Erik the Appreciator 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic. Has one reference and could certainly have more. --JJay 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, what claim or claims in this article does that reference support? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference in the bibliography, "The Official Pokemon Handbook", is a children's book with fun cartoon pictures and an exciting special pullout poster for the kid's bedroom and descriptions of all your favourite Pokemon characters and a giant checklist of all 150+ pokemon so that you can check off each as you collect them by successfully nagging your parents crazy. Reading level: Ages 4-8. Bwithh 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, speedy keep. This article has been improved a lot since the last AfD. We just need to keep improving it. CoolKatt number 99999 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. You've already left a bolded comment above. Please read the AFD guide for the proper way to update your opinion like that. --Crossmr 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the difference between this article when it was last put through AFD and the version up right at this moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * wasn't the problem a complete lack of sources? I see one source for the entire article. Individual information isn't sourced. --Crossmr 02:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per "Cultural references in..." articles exist for lots of other popular movies/games. Needs cleanup != needs deletion. The fact that it doesn't seem to be getting that cleanup does not mean the topic is inherantly worthless, it means no one is working on it. -Goldom (t) (Review) 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the presence of other crap articles as justification for keeping a crap article. Bring up any article of that sort and I'll gladly dump it into AfD. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said they were "crap" articles, they are perfectly valid articles about cultural influences by popular media. Pages like List of references to Citizen Kane in other work, Cultural impact of Star Trek, Cultural impact of Star Wars, List of cultural references to Star Wars. They are slightly different than this (references to rather than in, but the idea is the same). (Lists of cultural references are also just about always present on articles about TV show episodes.) I would hope you do not "dump" them to AfD just because I mentioned them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Goldom, if put on something like the Article Improvement Drive that forces it to get cleaned up. If nothing like that exists/can be found or used, or if they can't improve the article, delete. Morgan Wick 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOR. For Goldom, having a load of other articles with a similar precedent may be reason to delete those articles, not keep this one. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for many of the reasons stated above. Because the info could be useful, doesn't mean it belongs here. WarChild 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.