Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 105 (Pokémon)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was Gotta delete em' all! =D - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 105 (Pokémon)[edit]

Non-encylopedia-notable videogame info ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated into this as a bundle:
Route 101 (Pokémon)
Route 102 (Pokémon)
Route 103 (Pokémon)
Route 104 (Pokémon)
Route 106 (Pokémon)
Route 107 (Pokémon)
Route 108 (Pokémon)
Route 109 (Pokémon)
Route 110 (Pokémon)

  • Delete or merge as they are not worthy of their own articles. Royboycrashfan 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, recurring pokemon locations. Could probably be merged. Kappa 02:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ten articles on recurring locations within the same videogame. What's next, a separate article for each streetcorner in Grand Theft Auto? ("On 5th and Main you can mug a pimp and steal his bling." "On Broad and 9th you can either buy drugs or shoot the drug dealer.") Thatcher131 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Taking notes> --Calton | Talk 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual routes are not notable (enough to warrant seperate articles), and as for the rest, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual per WP:NOT. --CrypticBacon 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one, all encompassing article on Pokemon universe highways. Bayberrylane 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pokemon. Good grief. The only thing about merging these is, each article has a section called "Obtainable Pokémon" with a bunch of entries of what I suppose must be pokemon characters and their "obtainability", whatever that is. If this information is significant and if it pertains somehow to the different 'routes' (whatever those are), no way you can merge it unless you made a huge table or something. Herostratus 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah but what purpose does that serve an encyclopedia (and I say this as a believer in video games as the future of entertainment, and a member of the the video game industry....it's just not something that belongs in an encyclopedia). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That I cannot say. To be honest, the articles made about as much sense to me as an article on neuroscience. But I wouldn't say to scrunch and merge a bunch of neuroscience articles because I don't know what they mean. For all I know these 'routes' are a great literary achievement, keys to unlock the secrets of the human heart, a stage for exposing the human condition in all its triumph and sorrow, a new Shakespeare Folio for our times, the glory of the age, which future generations will pore over in wonderment and awe, seeking ever-more detail in their quest to understand the minds of those who created such transcendant art, a quest which, alas, will be ever in vain, for the legendary Wikipedia articles that are said to form the keystone, then nexus, they key, the map, that brings together the raveled threads and claims Truth from the shadows... these are forever lost. Herostratus 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That brought a tear to my eye! ;-) --Oarias 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best merge. It looks like something that would be more at home on Wikibooks. Gerard Foley 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No salvagable information worth noting. Nifboy 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best merge into one article. kotepho 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pokécruft, per all above. Sandstein 05:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless, as per Thatcher, we want to invite articles on every building in Max Payne 2 or every AmmuNation in Grand Theft Auto. FCYTravis 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as Pokemoncruft, and because keeping would invite a whole new level of cruft that we can't imagine yet... --Kinu t/c 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as Pokemoncruft. --Terence Ong 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are places to put game guides (wikibooks?), an encyclopedia isn't one of them. Average Earthman 08:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too crufty for my blood -- Samir ∙ T C 09:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best merge into a simple table on a single article. (Most of the content is the same anyway) - Tangotango 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a larger article. Turnstep 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like the info in these already exists elsewhere. These articles are mostly all the same anyway. Ned Wilbury 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh dear god, gamecruft that is cruftier than cruft. And if THAT'S not convincing: Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.--Isotope23 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com. Pepsidrinka 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one all-encompassing article. Notability is not a problem. Pokemon has a rather large following, and the list could prove somewhat useful to this crowd. I have seen far less notable things slip by AfD on a regular basis. There is no reason to have separate articles. There is very little information in each article.  Cdcon  21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I hadn't seen that. Thatcher131 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appallingly crufty. Really. Absolutely no encyclopaedic merit whatsoever. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per JzG and others. --kingboyk 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge any appearance relevant to the specific pokémon article. Fetofs Hello! 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serious PokéCruft. Advise interested parties to incorporate useful info into an existing article before it gets flushed. Shouldn't take long... Deizio 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. There isn't enough significant information concerning the individual routes in Pokemon, aside from strategy guide-type info, to warrant articles for each. WarpstarRider 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This belongs in a strategy guide or at Gamefaqs. Wikipedia is neither of these. -- Saberwyn 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete This is worse than cruft. I'd almost call it vandalism. Flooding WikiPedia with useless trivia. -- Oarias 04:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's not get too comprehansive on the Pokemon subject, shall we. --Obli (Talk)? 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of locations in Pokemon or something. --Rory096 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, because this is just ridiculous. Pokécruft, and completely un-encyclopedic. Chairman S. Talk 21:53, 14 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Route_105_(Pokémon)&oldid=1220538996"