Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon references or spoofs[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of references in Codename: Kids Next Door, this is article is nothing but a list of trivia, composed of more-or-less indiscriminate random references to Pokémon in other works. None of this is sourced or sourceable (many of these references are ambiguous as to what they're referencing). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shows how Pokemon influences other works of popular fiction, thus explaining its notability. The South Park episode "Chinpokomon" is hardly a random reference. Kappa 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chinpokomon has its own article and is linked in several other Pokémon articles. Its inclusion here is merely redundant. It's the other references that are dubious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? Kappa 05:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. The vast majority of them are "Someone was playing Pokémon in the background" or "Collectable card games/monster anime/anime in general is being parodied." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous comment. Lists such as this are, in my opinion, worth having.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual, provable, physical events. Pokemon has had great influence in our culture and entertainment: this article outlines such influences on popular culture.
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are many similar pages out there, for Star Trek, Simpsons, etc. That's not to say it's a good reason to keep it, but there's plenty of precident. I think the larger issue is if, in general, these pages belong on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - bad form? When an article has a large notice at the top of both it (in this case for cleanup) and the talk page pointing you at the wikiproject this article is involved with, it is considered good form to let them know you've nominated the article for AfD. LinaMishima 02:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been discussed at length at WP:PCP in the past, with the upshot being to leave it alone and hope it goes away while everyone works on better articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link? LinaMishima 03:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Nobody from the project has complained; you've taken it upon yourself to be offended on our behalf. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Man In Black, please assume good faith and that I would appreciate the link to the discussion so that I could use it as input on my not-vote, which is indeed the case. LinaMishima 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll dig through the archives. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) LinaMishima 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly not a bare-bones stub. There's a lot of good, useful material here that can possibly be cleaned up or better organized. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Melodia Chaconne said. Though could use a smidge of cleaning up. Toastypk 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as well as the fact that if I were a casual fan of Pokemon, I would only be minorly interested in a page like this. As a hardcore fan, though, I still think the page is too indiscriminate to be on Wikipedia. Bulbapedia, perhaps? Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 04:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not particularly interesting, and definitely not important. This entire page could be summed up in the sentence "Like all other popular series, Pokémon is sometimes referenced in other shows." We don't need a page of trivia to make that fact verifiable. It would be better to select a handful of representative examples and work the fact into the main Pokémon article. Oh, wait -- it's already there! Then this is completely redundant. Wikipedia is for disseminating knowledge, not merely unimportant facts. — Haeleth Talk 08:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft that violates WP:NOT by being an indescriminate collection of information. Indrian 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pokecruft. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable; list is unencyclopaedic... per nom, and above. --Kunzite 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly unencyclopedic listcruft. KleenupKrew 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is entirely trivia and doesn't contributed to any other Pokemon article. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of trivia, funny but not useful, if anything. If it's important, I'm sure somebody else must have collected it in a place where standards are not so high. Comment: I was going to close this myself as "delete" but I'd like to explain which keep votes should be discounted: (1) votes which appeal to the "other articles are just as bad" defense; (2) a vote that says that appearing in one episode of a series makes anything notable; (3) a vote that basically says that anything that is verifiably true deserves a place in Wikipedia. This content should be at most in an external website linked from the main Pokémon article. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft to the extreme. Not helpful, unencyclopedic, trivia, violates WP:NOT. Besides, I'd be a list of shows, etc who haven't made fun of Pokemon would be shorter. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite This article is a source of Pokémon infomation that is hard to gather together. Needs to be rewritten, though. (Iuio 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep If this should be deleted, then pretty much everything in the "In popular culture" category should too. I mean, judging by what's been said here... why do we need a List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors article for every time someone plays Rock, Paper, Scissors in pop culture? I mean, I don't think it should be deleted, but if this goes, then that does to. I've learned a thing or two about notability, and everyone seems to know of some of these referenced like the 30 Minutes Over Tokyo one, even if they don't watch/play/whatever Pokémon. However, if you want it off that badly, I say merge and redirect to Pokémon. Matty-chan 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.