Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon regions (2nd 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 was   delete. Usefulness or popularity of a parent article/subject does not mean the subject under discussion is notable in the absence of multiple reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon regions
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Approximately one year after people argued that it was a noteworthy topic for inclusion on Wikipedia, or that it can be improved, it hasn't proved true. The sources are almost exclusively either from Nintendo themselves - which is not necessarily a bad thing but seem to focus on referencing the existence of the regions rather than the significance or history - or unreliable, such as "Nintendo Gamez". The article should be stripped of its components and put into the relevant articles that benefit. My opinion is that generally, the video game articles should be the recipient of all content related to their respective region that isn't specifically about, say, the anime or what not. After that's done, the article should be deleted because it's not a likely necessary redirect. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: This page collects reliably sourced content about all of the fictional settings of the Pokémon video games, anime, etc., and includes third party reliable sources, particularly for the more recent games in the series. Arguably, more content can be dedicated to production, but it's going to be nigh impossible to find for items from over 10 years ago. Also, according to WP:VG, discussion of the setting is practically discussing the levels which is forbidden for some weird reason.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the setting simply needs to be at the right level. The best way in this context is to find sources that discuss important elements of the regions, such as Ruby/Sapphire having a long stretch of water. Having a well-written paragraph on the game's setting isn't bad. Anyway, the problem with the sources like NYT is that they're more so simply stating a fact rather than asserting that the fact is significant; NYT, from what I recall, simply stated that the movie was set in a specific location, not uncommon when explaining a movie or game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well recent sources have been remarking on the use of New York or France, but for older stuff I'm not too sure about it.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's useful to have all the information about the regions together in one article and I don't think moving the information to their respective games would work nearly as well, not least because this article also contains information about the regions in the anime and the other non-video game parts of the franchise. Given the popularity and cultural influence of the franchise, I think this is worth keeping. Pieism (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Usefulness nor popularity are regarded as good reasons to keep an article on Wikipedia. As it stands, the sections of this article do not once assert notability through reliable, third-party sources, and without this, the article definitively fails WP:NOTE. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I do agree with Hippie on the fact that these regions could easily be put into the game articles. The amount of anime information here is super minimal, and I don't really know what would be relevant to discuss about it. As for deleting the article, I think that saving history is important, and if you tried hard enough, you could make this into a great article. The question is if anybody is willing to. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging by last year's deletion discussion, no one is willing to try to.
 * Also, I think that the state of Gameplay of Pokémon is questionable. An ideal situation would be to have a Universe of Pokémon article with the regions, and all the aspects of the universe like Pokeballs and the Pokemon League, things that span all Pokémon media. Gameplay of Pokémon would only have gameplay features like stats/abilities. The problem is that the anime is derived from the games, so while it has aspects like Pokeballs, but doesn't go into full detail. You may see shinies in the anime(Ash's Noctowl), but to fully discuss them you must discuss them in the aspect of the game universe. It makes it a very sticky situation for the naming and content of these articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather not see yet another content repository. I would much rather see content like this used to improve the games that right now are actually notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - while it could be put into game or other related articles, it's better to keep all of the information here, since 1) some of the regions belong to multiple games (e.g. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl + Pokemon Platinum), so there's in the majority of cases no clear merge target, and 2) the setting of the main games is being discussed more and more on its own in the video game media and has even been commented on in mainstream media, especially as the games are moving out of Japan and becoming more international. To be honest, though, this article shouldn't be so much about gameplay as the real-life correlations (if any) and production, and many of the "Other regions" should be merged into their respective main articles. Ansh666 19:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that makes no sense. You can't keep the "main regions" just because Black/White and X/Y have commentary on their designs and omit the side regions. Having a "Pokemon Regions" article, you would expect to see all of them, not just "the best". Its not like List of Pokémon characters, where including more would massively drive it out of control. If you omit Orre/Oblivia/Holon, you might as well omit Kanto/Johto for having similar lack of sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what I was getting at in that part was that we can keep the regions that we actually see in-game or in-anime or whatever (so Orre and Fiore, for example, would stay), but the "here's a cool new concept that doesn't fit in with anything else so let's just invent a new place where it came from that isn't mentioned ever again" ones like the "Stadium region" (merge into the Kanto section), Mystery Dungeon regions, and "Unknown locations" don't really fit in - so basically, anything without a proper name. Ansh666 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pokemon Diamond and Pearl is clearly the appropriate target for Sinnoh because the region is its original use in video games. As for notability, again, its last AfD saw none of this supposed notability come out of the woodwork. As far as the article is concerned (in its current state), no one has commented on it. I don't want to see this article pass AfD without people properly asserting the oft-made claim that an article can have the sources if people try, because that usually never happens. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noting, WP:N does not require that the sources found actually appear in the article itself, just that they exist. Ansh666 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This statement serves no purpose because one would have to demonstrate that they exist, which no one has done. It is true that sources don't need to be in an article, but where exactly do you claim these sources of notability exist? That much needs to be proven. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I just wanted to clarify that one bit, though. I'm far too busy to do a thorough search, I'm really basing everything on the fact that I've read some articles about the locations of BW and XY. I feel that most of the sources for the earlier games would be offline (e.g. Nintendo Power magazines), given the time. Ansh666 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it possible to build a "Setting of Pokemon" article (akin to something like Mythology of Lost) from secondary sources? The Pokemon world has enough interesting oddities that I would guess one might be possible? At which point, this list can be merged into that. --M ASEM  (t) 04:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading through the arguments I'm convinced it should be kept. The number of video games, cartoons, comic books, films, toys, etc. of this multi-billion dollar long running series, justifies listing information to help understand the franchise, and these things all take place in these locations. It should be renamed to show it is a list article.  D r e a m Focus  23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (note, copied from the AFD last year, where same exact discussion already happened)
 * Funny thing is, I voted Neutral last year as well. How about that? Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you mean to suggest that the article doesn't have to be notable because it is Pokemon? That's silly and not supported by any guideline or policy. Being useful is a fantastic reason to have this article exist on Bulbapedia. Certainly not on Wikipedia. As it stands it has no more reason to exist than an article on Ash's hat would. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the arguments stem not from "the article proves its worth"; quite the contrary. The arguments almost exclusively focus on the parent subject (Pokemon) and justify its existence by saying "Pokemon is popular." What makes it okay that the AfD from last year resulted in keep? On this very day, the article has three independent reliable sources. GamesRadar, The New York Times, and Scholastic. Scholastic is used to verify a fact; GamesRadar notes a similarity between a Pokemon location and a real-world location; and The New York Times is, like Scholastic, used to verify a fact. Therefore, the article has only one source that is used as direct critical commentary on the Pokemon regions subject. Do you agree that in this discussion you are arguing that three independent third-party sources are adequate to sustain an article? Do you agree that 2/3 of these sources being used only to verify facts is troublesome? If not, why? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 
 * Delete - per NARH commentary above, which is similar to my argument the last time this thing was up at AFD a year ago. Pokémon is wildly popular, and meets the GNG very easily. The game's setting, however, does not. There is very little actual coverage on this, and almost all of the information is either redundant to other Pokémon related articles, or would be better suited there instead of a standalone article. It should be deleted, and anything of note should be instead placed in the individual game's article, or in the series article. Sergecross73   msg me   19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just really hope that the closing administrator notes that the arguments for keeping the article are all based on the series' popularity and don't assert any notability for this specific subject. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG yes pokemon is a popular series but notability is not inherited, this is the policy editors need to think of here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (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.