Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pottsylvania


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nom. Despite some merge recommendations no delete, all others keep. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pottsylvania

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable. If important to the show, it should be mentioned in one of the main articles (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Kewp (t) 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Kewp, per WP:NOREASON, please make constructive arguments as to why you think the article should be kept instead of merely throwing down a vote. This is not a vote, it is a deletion discussion. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge – into the The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show piece. As a stand alone delete. Shoessss |  Chat  15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Shoessass 132.205.99.122 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While you are at it, why don't you delete most of the other Rocky & Bullwinkle articles as well? All of these articles are clearly relics from a previous era of Wikpedia, and should be purged. Anything that isn't published on the internet isn't notable! Everything that isn't notable must be removed from Wikipedia! Well done, citizen! Shoehorn 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to have a quality encyclopedia on every topic imaginable, and there are guidelines as to what should be included, such as verifiability and notability which help us make those decisions. And if this article cannot meet those standards, the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These guidelines appear to be little more than bureaucratic tools that serve to limit the scope of what "every topic" should include. As I said, please purge the site of everything which you do not find to be notable. It won't make WP better, but it will make you feel important. Shoehorn (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be civil or do not participate. And secondly, the guidelines keep wikipedia from being a gameguide or a fan wiki with no credibility or quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a laughable statement. If there's one thing Wikipedia is, it's a fan guide to various pop culture icons.  Episode and character guides exist for all the popular and cult programs (Buffy, Star trek, and many more obscure).  Is this show was Japanese and current, there wouldn't be a hint of anyone suggesting deletion.  Shouldn't encyclopedias hold long-term information? 70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you will find, anywhere in print or on the web, reliable sources that will establish the notability of Pottsylvania as a primary subject. There is no motivation for anyone to produce primary source material about this topic. But I also don't think WP benefits from deleting this article or others of like caliber, regardless of guidelines and the bureaucratic behavior they inspire. Without articles like this, the cultural value of WP gradually decreases, until it becomes as rigid and bland as the paper encyclopedias it was intended to replace. Take the long term perspective: in ten years, is someone going to be able to find good information about this topic? Not if you delete this page, because no fansite is going to preserve this information (fansites are among the most transient sites on the web), and no "credible" site is going to show any interest in this topic at all. So go ahead, purge this page, and purge the rest of them. It is the future of WP: a self-aggrandizing resource that has no cultural value whatsoever. Shoehorn (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. A very cogent argument.  70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep "In-universe" is a guideline on how to and how not to phrase fiction articles, it is not a reason for deletion. The show was 40 years ago, I'm sure if someone starts digging through periodicals they could find dozens of references.  See also WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove it, there has yet to be any actual demonstration of multiple notable references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This is one of those articles that just seems so notable, and I am shocked that it has nary a cite.  Backing up Squidfryerchef's comments, it seems that time ought to be allowed for editors to find articles or even Nick at Night cites. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am "shocked" you would claim it so notable not having produced even ONE reference; please remember wikipedia does not rely on people hunches, especially when the article has been here a long time with no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Shoessss. It rates a paragaph or two on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, but no independent notability found out of universe. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep inappropriate use of relisting. Further debate is NOT a substitute for "no consensus" Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Bearian. The article likely has notability, but it will require some work. If Judgesurreal777 is so concerned with this article degrading Wikipedia, perhaps instead of requiring everyone else to cite it, he/she can do the leg work. Just a thought.  Justin  chat 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You see Justin, if I thought that "legwork" would improve the article, I would leave it be for someone who is interested, perhaps like yourself. But I contend that there is no "legwork" to be done, as it has no notability, so there is basically nothing to add to the article in terms of substantive encyclopedic coverage. This is a discussion to show that we can find 2-3 actual notable references so this article should be kept not deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a discussion to find a consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. At this point, at best this is going to end in no consensus.  Justin  chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lately, many closers seem to have enough common sense to rule out a horde of keep votes that have nothing to do with policy, and go with the side with the best policy-based argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am almost always wrong on these but here goes my thinking anyway. Article dates back to 2003 and is a reference to a fictional place in a 1961 TV show. Google produces 11,500 hits. It has never raised a notability issue in the last 4 years. In my limited thinking, if Wikipedia existed in 1961 we would not be having this discussion as we would have references out the wazoo. Once a subject is deemed notable always notable. I would say based on the age of the subject matter and the age of the article it at one point met the requirements. That said... a merge would also be just fine.  Gtstricky Talk or C 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per lack of demonstrated notability. I agree that The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show makes a fine merge target. – sgeureka t•c 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of those cases where I feel that WP:IAR is somewhat appropriate. Gtstricky and Shoehorn make fairly cogent arguments that (intentionally or unintentionally) support this. The article has a couple of references which seem to confirm the external notability, even if the coverage in those sources isn't "highly significant" in Wikipedia terms. The existing sources for these notability assertions and the assertions themselves hint at a strong potential for coverage in academic works, particularly those examining Cold War media. A cursory internet search doesn't turn up much in this regard, but at the same time, it doesn't turn up much of any source material published before 2000. It is likely that any significant source material is not well-archived online at this point, given the non-recentness of the information. I support the decision to place a tag for citation improvement on the article, as has already been done, but those participating in AfDs need to remember that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, and that AfD is NOT the place to get articles improved. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Alright, just stop right now, this debate is totally not grounded in reality anymore. We are not going to ignore the rules, as there is no reason to, and the article must either assert notability through reliable referencing, or it should be deleted. All these keep votes are just filibustering, and accomplish nothing. Keep votes not backed up with any actual assertion of notability are meaningless, so please stop wasting everyones time. Google searches mean nothing unless there are reliable sources within them, which is totally not a given, and "hinting at potential sources" is equally meaningless without actual proof. It is the responsibility of those who would keep the article to assert notability. Finally, it is absurd the way people voting keep are totally ignoring the nominating concerns and wikipedia policy in making their arguments, so if you are going to participate in this discussion, please look over Wikipedia policies, such as WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have made your point very clear many times. The article is now cited.  Gtstricky Talk or C 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are these sources reliable? One is clearly a joke page. The TV Acres mention is more plot summary. The part of the Sun Times article outside the pay wall, only mentions Pottsylvania in passing. Article sources should be directly about the subject from a real world perspective (e.g. Pottsylvania as Cold War metaphor). The 3 web articles just don't do it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. The name exists enough that people are going to come here looking for it. 3 (or 4) references are more then any article in the Category:Fictional countries   Gtstricky Talk or C 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What "we" are doing is exactly as WP is intended to do. Find a consensus. The direction on this is clearly leaning towards keep (albeit, it will probably end with no consensus). Suggesting certain policies should be followed, while WP:IGNORE shouldn't is kind of one-sided don't you think? You may not like the results, but it seems you won't be content unless this is deleted, which it seems it clearly won't be.  Justin  chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When the only policy you can cite to keep an article is "Ignore all rules" you should know your just arguing for argument sake and have no real ground to stand on in terms of policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I can see the point being made by the folks opining delete, the issue of 1960s-era topics is a tough one to deal with because of the lack of archived sources in easy reach. I suspect there are a few sources on this topic, somewhere, but I'm not sure where to even start looking for sources on a fictional country from a cartoon. However, it is a well known name from a popular series, so I'm going to suggest at the least a merge to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, with a lean towards keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you suspect they exist, please get two or three of them so we will know there are actual references for this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion (scroll along to the following pages) comparing Pottsylvania with the Soviet Union, while not terribly extensive, would seem to indicate a certain amount of attention in reputable sources. Deor (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, you have one, now find one or two more to satisfy WP:RS which calls for multiple sources, good job, glad to see someone working on it and not just endlessly complaining.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the snippy tone is called for; I was just pointing out a source, and I haven't even registered an opinion in this AfD. I've noticed that folks who feel compelled to respond to every single comment in discussions like this usually wind up on the losing end. Deor (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, because this is a discussion, I am engaging people who wish to vote in discussion to either establish if they have a valid concern that the article is notable and know of references, or are voting out of pure ignorance, as most do. I also think its hilarious that your attacking me when the "keepers" are the ones who are being a bunch of whiners and thus being criticized, and as you have actually done something, I am not criticizing you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you've been rude and snippy the moment you had anyone disagree with you. You feel the article should be removed, clearly the majority does not agree. Calling the editors here "ignorant" is in itself ignorant, because the basis of your argument is that the article fails to conform to policy, when you are willing ignoring the first (and arguably, most important policy). Nobody here is whining with exception to you. The consensus is pretty clear here, 7 keeps, 2 merges, 2 deletes. I would say that qualifies as a weak keep/no consensus, and no amount of insulting is going to change that. 70.57.166.104 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow this has gotten some attention today. Again, the cartoon has been around for 40 years and is still famous, and I presume many references could be found in period magazines.  But do they have to cited now to keep the article from deletion?  No, that's why we have tags for such things. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does, now, because otherwise it will be deleted for not being notable. There is no "presuming", now is the time for proof. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are out there. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=sn&q=pottsylvania&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable.  Here's another stack of sources.  The only mystery is what happened to the real place of this name in Virginia?  Obviously not as enduring as the fictional country :) Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough with the random google searches, actually provide a reference, because these are useless unless we can see useable stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement for anyone here to satisfy you. Enough people believe this article can be sourced and written in an encyclopedic way. So perhaps instead of making yourself look absurd in the constant bickering, accept it, and find something new to AFD.  Justin  chat 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just enough with the random google searches, its just ridiculous pointing to it like there is a source there when you have no idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw thankfully - Ahh, while this pointless and unproductive debate with people who have no grasp of policy was going on, under our noses half a dozen out of universe sources were added, at least a few of which seem reliable, so it has established a limited notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (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.