Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johto

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 keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johto[edit]

It's largely gamecruft, and as per WP:NOT, it doesn't belong here. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written article on a subject of an extensively covered TV/game series. The article could use more sourcing, but, certainly, the sourcing is out there to be had. WP:NOT says nothing about using AfD as a forum for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dekkappai (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand what part of WP:NOT you are referring to. Looking through the article, I don't see much gamecruft in it, and I recently did a major copyedit and trim of it, removing most of the trivial details [1]. Artichoker^talk 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Seems to be a violation of WP:POINT --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, and per this post I'm thinking this nomination (and the other two) are bad-faith WP:POINT noms Abwayax (c :: t) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the point Fivexthethird had as at the time of this article's nomination it had no references. Since then I have added over 20 references from literature, and therefore establishing notability. Even if other Pokemon Region articles should be met with deletion because of the references this article has, it should be kept.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There all about a game gide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is with the information being referenced by a game guide is. The game guides I referenced are the Official Walkthroughs released by Nintendo, and they accurately reference the information.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable (referenced), and I have a hard time dismissing it as gamecruft, given the number of times "in the anime" or "in the manga" appears in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Didn't individual pokemon have the exact same problem? Which is why there are now, what, four articles on individual pokemon now? Manga and anime are still "in-universe". Nifboy (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While individual Pokemon articles obviously do not establish notability, the fact that all of our facts are referenced separates region articles from individual Pokemon articles. And being in-universe' does not constitute deletion.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An exclusively in-universe perspective is the polar opposite of how we write articles on fiction. Nifboy (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, being written in an in universe style does not constitute deletion, only a tag at the top of the page.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to me that the nominations of these Pokemon Region article are in retaliation for the deletion of the former Pokemon Region article, Glitch City. This post verifies that they are bad faith nominations and as stated above, a violation of WP:POINT, the nomination for this article should be settled quickly.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, stuff added is in game strategy guide references which means nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThe sources are completely reliable, these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information. These strategy guides are officially released by Nintendo the makers of the game, they are the best possible source for this information Also I don't see what the problem is with referencing strategy guides is, the strategy guides contain the information that I'm referencing, which is all you really have to do when referencing.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, real-world or virtual. Neither should articles related to games dwell too much on in-game aspects per WP:VGSCOPE #7. The references are mostly used to verify in-game aspects instead of real-world development or impact. The official guides are endorsed by Nintendo, hence they are either primary or secondary sources. Without reliable third-party sources (or even secondary sources) for real-world information, this article fails WP:BURDEN. Jappalang (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not written as a strategy guide at all, it serves as an information source for notable places in this region. And as for third party sources, I don't see why a game guide published by Prima isn't a third party source.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of my reasons deal with it being a strategy guide. It is a travel guide and deals only with in-game information. Prima's guide being titled as "official" and endorsed by Nintendo would mean it is a secondary source at the most (you stated "these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information", did you not?) Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An Amazon search gives 3,527 results for books on Pokemon. A very high percentage of these no doubt cover Johto. While I doubt they are all useful, this is clear evidence that the article can be sourced. I encourage the editors of the article to look into these sources and so source the article. I will be honest enough to admit that Pokemon does not interest me, so I won't be editing the article. I am also open-minded enough to tolerate the existence of articles on subjects I don't like. Dekkappai (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you get 3,527 books to verify that Ash arrives first in New Bark Town, that players battle their rivals for the first time in Cherrygrove, that two towers were built opposite each other to foster friendship among Pokemons, etc. None of those are real-world relevant information. If the article had 50-50 real-world/in-game sourced information, it could be made into a good article blending two elements. This article, however, is 100% in-game information. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm an old guy with absolutely no interest in Pokemon. But even I know that Pokemon is a franchise, not just a game. It consists of multiple TV series, book series, card games, and God knows what else. I have a very hard time believing that this AfD or any Delete Vote-- excuse me !Vote-- is in good faith. Dekkappai (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is a known franchise, but what Wikipedia needs to substantiate articles on fictional work is real-world information (development, reception, etc). If there is such information on just Johto (why and how the designers come up with Johto, the process of developing Johto, the reception to Johto) and the contributors edit them in, the article would become the kind of article Wikipedia is for, and I would never have put in a Delete vote. Assuming my "Delete is in bad faith" is a bad assumption on your part and in bad faith itself. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Kanto and Hoenn nominations. "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". --.:Alex :. 11:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my part, I fail to see what WP:POINT has to do with this. The user might be disruptive, but the AFD is not. The article is failing the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia articles. It is certainly not a disruptive AFD (such an AFD would be raising up trivial or nonsensical reasons to bring to AFD articles that are fully or mostly compliant). The user should be reprimanded for his disruptive intent, but the AFD is not disruptive to ensuring Wikipeida has articles complying with its policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThis article meets guidelines set by Wikipedia, not only does it have many reliable and third party references (Prima), it has more of these references than many non-challenged articles. And I agree with you, on WP:Point

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.