Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD 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 as non-encyclopedic list. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon references or spoofs[edit]

First off: A Man In Black nominated this for deletion a few months ago, and the result was "no consensus"; I didn't know about that debate when I decided to nominate this for deletion. I've had a problem with this article for a few months now. I discovered it back in December and, going against my initial instinct to nominate it for deletion, instead deleted most of the list items, leaving only the most "notable" items. The current page, though not as long as the one I purged back then, is nonetheless pretty bad. I can see a possible reason for having this page (separating this "trivia" from the main article to avoid clutter there), but that's a weak argument at best. The small section in the main article is, with a bit of expansion, sufficient: it mentions a couple of the more notable references, and provides links to the appropriate pages. Additionally, unlike this page, the section of the main article that deals with cultural references is much more high-profile, and therefore easier to edit to weed out extraneous, fancrufty information. There is no reason to have this information anyway - it's not encyclopedic in any sense of the term. Who needs to know about a Pokémon card parody by Nickelodeon Magazine back in the late '90s? I saw that spoof, and laughed at it, and could probably even dig it out of my old magazine piles to verify it. But it's not at all notable or important, and neither are almost all the items on this page. This is one of the useless extraneous pages that the PCP often catches a lot of flak about; the fewer of them the better. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft and listcruft that belongs on a fan wiki instead. RobJ1981 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of anything remotely related to or in the opinion of an editor resembles something related to Pokemon. Provides no context for most items establishing the importance of the items either within the fictional realm from which they are drawn or the real world. Otto4711 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. The keep arguments in the last AfD consisted of "It's useful/interesting, and we have to delete all popular culture references if we delete this!", so that's unconvincing. -Amarkov moo! 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Maustrauser 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. This article screams fancruft. Its totally useless. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A textbook example of what's wrong with all "in popular culture" sections and articles: nothing but a non-notable, crufty wall of trivia. Krimpet

Keep and improve - While i agree with Krimpet's arguement that this is one of those lists that makes people want to crusade against all pop culture lists, both RobJ1981 and Jerichi need to remember that just calling something cruft is not an argument in itself and should be avoided at AFDs. First, the keep: Any subject that has become so well known that it is criticized, parodied, and referenced in a wide variety of media outlets deserves a section that appropriately details some of the more high-profile or notable cases (e.g. given South Park's ratings, the "Chinpokomon" episode would be high-profile). I could make a point and go over to Wikipedia in popular culture and delete the two rather lengthy lists found there. While there may be consensus for deleting the Miscellaneous section, I doubt I would get away with rming the first one which are "Landmark references." I'm not trying to make a "two wrongs make a right" arguement, i just want to show how editors tend to say, "Well it's Pokemon, and so if it's not highly important or ref-bloated we should get rid of it." The result is "cruft, cruft, cruft." How to improve: If you take a close look at Otto4711's arguements you can see that this list could be improved if anyone wanted to take the time to provide the importance of said pop culture references - the Wikpedia related article justifies many of it's inclusions because they are the first examples within a specific media (of course 3 of them could be rm for not fulfilling this criterion), this list could follow suit with many of the entries. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would argue that "Chinpokomon" or "Thirty Minutes over Tokyo" aren't notable - of all of them, they do definitely deserve to be mentioned. Ling-Ling too, perhaps, though Drawn Together isn't as well-known as the others. But these references and the few others that are relatively important can be contained easily in the section in the section in the main Pokémon article (as they already somewhat are). And while pointing a finger and yelling "CRUFT!" is hardly an argument in itself, it's an allegation that can't just be waved aside. It is undeniably crufty, but another, more important argument that I was trying to put forward (which may not have come through as well) is that because all of the pertinent information can fit easily on the main Pokémon page, this article is simply unnecessary. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if every item on the list were sourced it would still be indiscriminate and a directory. Unless those sources included verification that those items which resemble Pokemon were in fact intended by the creator to be a spoof of Pokemon (as opposed to some other similar card game or toy) the list would still suffer from original research. Otto4711 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not trying to say that merely sourcing the list will make it better. We should be discriminating in what is kept in the article. As in the example below, Kids Next Door spoofs hardly seem notable enough as the Pokemon allusions constitute OR unless someone can find a source saying the creators intentionally did it, and even then - it's such a unconsquential aspect of the show that it's still non-notable. e.o.t.d. is of the opinion that all the appropriate references after being properly sourced and having their notability and relevance expanded upon, would still fit nicely into the Pokemon article as a section, i'm disinclined to agree, as i managed to figure about eight entries that are notable, probable enough to be sourceable, and relevant to either Pokemon itself, the real-world, or the medium it was presented in (i.e. the KND episodes wouldn't have been changed much by not including the Ash look-a-like, however the Doctor Who novel makes some significant commentary that affects the overall impression of the reading). You can find an altered list at my sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs)

Delete. Not worth having up; not notable enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the log, it seems that the reason the last nomination was "no consensus" even with a decent number more "deletes" than "keeps" is the fact that the "deletes" gave hardly any support to their opinions. It's of course not required, but please try to say more than "CRUFT!" or "USELESS!"; giving some reasons will help keep another "no consensus" from happening. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current references are notable enough, just not things like "In a commercial someone was playing a Pokémon game." Matty-chan 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Oh, really? Then tell me how this fantastically written gem (included in the article at the time I write this) is significant:

"A couple of episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door had shots of a boy in Ash Ketchum's pre-Hoenn outfit."

Yup, that's the very definition of "notable" right there (I'll end the sarcastic bit now). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is because he is a recurring background character. If he just appeared once in one episode then I would probably disapprove. Matty-chan 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times he appears is absolutely unimportant; what is important is that he is unnamed (and even unnumbered), and has no spoken lines, unless I'm mistaken. Even if he does, that little bit of info is not even close to notable enough for this list (which isn't really notable in itself). WP:NOT#IINFO. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, something, anything. And clean up some at least. I would not like to see this disappear. At all. Cruft is not a reason to delete. Toastypk 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just think how huge a page would be if South Park had such as list. It also goes against the WP:NOT#IINFO policy. (Duane543 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. My reasoning from the first AFD stands: this is an indiscriminate collection of things people noticed while observing the works in question. All of these parodies are sourced only to the parodies themselves; there's no third-party commentary or even the hope of third-party commentary on them. This is the absolute lamest form of original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 24 February 2007 (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.