Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stantler

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Stantler
Antares33712 added to this article on June 8th, but didn't complete the process. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 00:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * if this article was put on vfd, then whoever put it there obviously didn't have a good enough reason or he/she would have created this page instead of me. so i vote keep instantly. Supersaiyanplough 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, pokemons are notable. Kappa 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Part of a large, interconnected series of articles. Google score of 8,850 strongly suggests notability. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &#8211; No more useless than any of the other Pokemon ones. Either keep them all or delete them all. Also, clearly states that it is a stub, so lack of original content is no worry. Kevin Wells 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changed to "Merge" per WP:FICT; see below. 15:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fancruft. Merge to whatever phyla is above the species level of Pokemen.  It's an industry:  it's their job to keep making cards to try to finesse a bit more money out of pre-adolescent pockets.  We'll never catch up, and we should never try. Geogre 01:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't know much about Pokémon, do you? They don't create new Pokémon with every set of cards!  About a hundred are added every three years, and that is all.  If we aren't finished by the time Pokémon Diamond and Pearl are released, we definately will be by the time the next set of Pokémon come out.  (Or as 'finished' as Wikipedia can ever be.)  Sonic Mew 15:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all except one page on Pokemon. This is an Encyclopedia. Hobbyists can go and make a web page of thier own with thier thousands of trading cardesque things, which are just a fad. Notability in this five year period, among kids, and wierd adults, does not indicate any unique contribution to mankind in any way. The generations of tomorrow do not need to know what 'Stantler' is. Kill it, kill all the pokemon crud off this Encyclopedia--0001 03:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This user, created today, has only edited VfD and his own user page &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This user, is a new user, is his opinion any less valid. He edited many articles under his IP--0001 08:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, especially since this is just a rant that is more POV than helping the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper.  There's also crystalballery in there.  Pokémon is surviving very well in post-fad status, (a Pokémon theme park has recently opened in Japan.  Would they have risked all that money on a fad?)  So the generation of tomorrow may still find Pokémon articles interesting.  And even if it did die away, it has still become a part of recent history which, once the article is expanded, will remain interesting. Sonic Mew 20:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Votes in a vote for deletion don't count if the user hasn't made at least 50 contributive edits to normal pages. Edits an IP made can't be attributed to you, since Wikipedia doesn't change attributes anymore (both due to work, and to abuse).  Almafeta 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite a source for the "minimum page edit" statement. It is offensive to many (like me) who edited for a long time anonymously prior to creating a user page, and it is in direct conflict with the WP:bite guideline and innumerable be bold statements on policy pages. IMHO, if it is a factual statement, Wiki has a serious problem. Kevin/Last1in 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone can make a good and low-bandwidth index we can merge this to. No less notable than the rest of the Pokes, and Wikipedia is not paper... -- Grev -- Talk 03:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but then again, I feel that way about pretty much all of the Pokemon articles. --Xcali 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge and Redirect per R. fiend. Part of a fad. There's no need for individual articles for all pokemon. We don't have individual articles for each type of yo-yo or frisbee ever made. -ÅfÇ++ 07:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But there tends to be more variety to Pokémon than yo-yos or frisbees. Besides, it has remained strongly popular in non-fad status.  Sonic Mew 15:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because there is more variety does not mean that it ALL has to be covered in large length (ie individual pokemon pages). Has it really stayed popular enough that a page on each pokemon and his playing card stats are neccesary? I would say that a page explaining each series or new group of pokemon and listing the pokemon therein would be enough. There arent individual yo-yo pages because despite all the variation it has, only a yo-yo geek would care about it, and to an extent such pages would be Advertisement since they would highlight a particular type of yo-yo.
 * Yes, it has stayed popular enough. It is POV to say it hasn't.  More people will care about Pokémon than the 'geeks'.  Maybe there will be a kid who just plays the games and watches the animé.  On Saturday's episode, a Chimecho will debue as a main character.  Wanting to know more, they can look in the Chimecho article.  Sonic Mew 10:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Highly speculative. You've mentioned several times that more people care about pokemon, I take that to mean, more people will begin to care about pokemon, which is contrary to what is/has happened. I won't even touch the laughable POV statement. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable pokecruft. JamesBurns 07:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and Pokemon is a fad, not a major work of literature, so while information on the marketing and publicising of it is notable, the statistics on individual cards is trivial. Average Earthman 08:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Good, since Wiki is not a game guide, we can get rid of the 3,427 articles related in one way or another to Chess. That should free up three times as much (non-paper) space as the Pokenonsense. We can fill that space with more Vfd debates. As for non-notable fads, can we get rid of Paris Hilton and Gangsta rap? BTW, I loathe Pokemon, but the facts are objectively verifiable and articles can be presented from NPOV, so why delete them? Kevin/Last1in 16:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Chess - 6th century and still going strong. Pokemon - 1999? and pretty much done. Are you suggesting pokemon should have as many if not more articles relating to it than Chess does? As for the other articles you name, I would say yes, let's get rid of those pages. But, Paris Hilton is still notable for being heiress of the Hilton Hotel fortune, and Gangsta rap is not a fad at all (having existed sicne the 80's and still going strong). -ÅfÇ++ 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Chess deserves those articles - no one has disputed that - but we are not trying to make 3,427 articles. We have only made 393 individual Pokémon pages.  The point of Kevin/Last1in's response was that Wikipedia is not paper.  Sonic Mew 10:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because it is not paper doesn't mean pokecruft should be left to run rampant. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, I hate pokemon too, but you can't delete them based on being cruft, if that happens, I'll be the first to start a deletion rampage on Star Wars cruft. Wikipedia isn't paper. - Mgm|(talk) 08:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hate Pokemon articles. Hate, hate, hate them. Still, as Mgm said- can't delete 'em because of cruftiness. (Unsigned vote by User:Scimitar)
 * Whoops. Thanks for signing for me. --Scimitar 16:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Scimitar, who agrees with MGM. -- Un focused 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's far more significant than a fad, though these could quite easily be merged into larger articles. &mdash; Xezbeth 14:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Part of a project.  If you dont like it, then take it to Pokeprosal  Sonic Mew 15:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep NSR 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The amount of space it takes up on the Wikipedia server, as compared to the number of people who would look up information on this article, makes it worth keeping.  Almafeta 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree but when can agree to disagree. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as per 0001 SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You are voting delete because you agree with a POV rant? Sonic Mew 14:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I'm more inclined to agree with the "POV rant" of 0001 than the POV rant of Sonic Mew, I don't know if we can delete this and not most other Pokemon artciles, which it seems isn't going to happen. So just merge and redirect this to some larger article on Pokemon. When the trend dies in a few years and no one cares anymore we can maybe overhaul all these articles without the whining of a bunch of tweens. -R. fiend 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well put, mate. -ÅfÇ++ 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone think this is going to die in a few years? It is remaining highly popular in post-fad status.  Sonic Mew 10:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it is already dead. You chaps over the pond will catch up soon enough. Sorry to ruin your pokedreams :[ -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Voting keep because this is looking close for some reason, and precedent, common sence, culture, and a few other reasons - NOT including individual user's (troll's?) PoV's on the matter - say so. humblefool&reg; 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been expanded as per the PAC in Poképrosal.  Votes may need to be reconsidered.  Almafeta 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As User:Almafeta has pointed out, this article has been much expanded since it was first nominated for deletion.  Though it is my opinion that if any Pokémon article is nominated for deletion, it will always get votes to delete, just because it is an article on Pokémon, regardless of any other factors.  --Daniel Lawrence 23:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Geeks and kids and genuinely curious people (myself being all three categories) plus many others will want to look at this. Yes, Pokèmon was a fad. So was rollerskating. Do you still see rollerskates in stores? Yes. As long as it makes money, Pokèmon will exist. As long as Pokèmon exists, as long as anything exists, there will be a Wikipedia article for it as long as more than one person is interested in it (I've never seen a Stantler fan club but I'm sure there is one). By the way, Pokèmon is NOT just a trading card game. It's also a video game, a cartoon, and a whole bunch of other stuff. The only reason it hasn't been around very long is that it was created very recently. You said chess was better? Wait 600 years and then we'll talk. Signed, a long time reader first time contributor called 69.234.76.21.
 * Vote by an IP Address whose only edit is this VfD discussion -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice one! I would like to extend that point by pointing to the guideline of WP:FICT, which clearly state that "Fictional characters which are cultural icons appearing in works of fiction not directly linked to themselves, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances."  With the trading card game, video games, animé, various manga, etc, the only way Stantler could fit into a merged article is being discussed in Pokeprosal. Sonic Mew 10:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to "Merge" - You were ill-served by mentioning WP:FICT. It undermines your entire argument (and my support). Sherlock Holmes references have appeared in everything from CSI episodes to  The Great Mouse Detective and he was inducted into the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2002. WP:FICT is saying that characters need to take on a existence of their own  outside their original setting , like Sherlock, Batman, Cruella De Vil, Winnie the Pooh to merit their own articles. Sorry, but outside the Pokemon universe (which includes the cards, comics, movies, cartoons, whatever), I cannot think of anywhere Stantler has popped up or is likely to. I don't personally agree with the premise on WP:FICT because I think it conflicts with WP:NOT, but it is listed as a policy... Ergo, vote change. Sorry-Kevin/Last1in 15:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as notable as most pokemon articles, but I guess that's really the debate. I personally find Pokemon articles more notable as most rail stubs. How do we "draw the line" between notable and non-notable pokemon? For such a notable franchise with such defined content limits (only so many pokemon), including them all won't be hard in the least.-LtNOWIS 03:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Keep the article, delete POV-pushers who vote delete. Andros 1337 22:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although we are an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not paper, and we have no practical limit to information, as Wikimedia has said.  Therefore, articles like these should be kept.  &#12413;&#12369;&#12418;&#12435;&#12391;&#12377;&#65281;  Falcon 05:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of 'Cruft' (from List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create)
 * stuff nobody but that guy who changes his Spock ears more often then his underpants cares about, or the equivalent thereof.
 * A lot more people will find the Stantler article interesting. And as part of the project, it will be expanded into a better article in the near future.  Again, see Pokeprosal.
 * WP:STUPID is a humor page. Don't take their cruft definition to serious. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This article can be considered part of one of our WikiProjects. I believe there is a whole project devoted to pokemon. There are also many other types of pokemon animal articles. It would be unusual to delete this one and have all the others still on our database. I believe that you could have only deleted this article if there were no other articles about pokemon animals. Rentastrawberry 17:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.