Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references in Pokémon

This article is a mess, and is beyond hope of cleanup. It's a list of random pop-culture or historical references in the Pokémon anime, and doesn't offer the context to make sense of the references. Besides having factual errors and an ongoing edit war between anons about whether it's appropriate to say that smoking marijuana is bad for you, neither of which are deletion criteria, Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, like lists of random, loosely-connected trivia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of lists, I betcha that there are lists that are in worse condition than this CoolKatt number 99999

I'm making the case that this list is hopeless, and cannot be improved. I've been working to try and clean it up, but I just can't see how it's not hopeless.

If you see another list that is hopelessly unencyclopedic, moreso than this one, feel free to put it on VFD. I'd be happy to vote delete on it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not get someone else to clean up for you? CoolKatt number 99999

Because I see a job that needs doing, so I'm doing it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

But you say you can't do it, thus negating your statement CoolKatt number 99999

I feel it can't be brought up to an encyclopedic standard. It's beyond hope to meet that standard, not beyond hope of any improvement. In the event consensus goes to keep this article, I'd hope that it wouldn't reflect poorly on Wikipedia (or, specifically, the Pokémon Wikiprojects on Wikipedia). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is only what you think, were there any times you thought to give up hope, yet kept going to the end? So just let the editing duties be done by someone else. CoolKatt number 99999

Huh? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Useful as a list, better than articles about each Pokemon episode. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh Lord, I fear we must keep this, for the alternative is mind-boggling. Could ask the WP:PAC to give it a once-over, though. -Splash 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, on closer reflection, I realise that there is not value in keeping this article. The lack of inward links suggests this has not been created by repeatedly merging, so there is not much reason to suppose that will suddenly change. -Splash 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you fear we must keep it? For what it's worth, I'm a member of WP:PAC and WP:PCP, and I think it's hopeless. Others may disagree. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because, if we don't, we'll get a bazillion seperate articles to replace it. Followed by a bazillion VfDs to merge them all again. -Splash 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • There are two different Pokémon-related Wikiprojects that are defending valid articles while helping to keep sucky ones under control. This article is not the result of merging unencyclopedic stubs, and deleting it is unlikely to result in the creation of new unencyclopedic stubs. Vote the merits of the article, not based on the consequences you fear. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Still, doesn't justify you to put this up on AFD instead of hiring someone else to clean-up the article CoolKatt number 99999
• Keep. Best to have this kind of Pokémoncruft collected together in one article so that the Pokémon fans can enjoy it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sweet jesus that's a fun little article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I agree with those who said "Keep", but this should just end now. CoolKatt number 99999
• Weak Keep/Upgrade - UniReb 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with above, it's best that it all stays in one article. Amren ^(talk) 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm in full support of every species of pokémon getting their own individual articles, but this one is so painfully crufty and obscure. I also refuse to vote on the basis of some spectral threat of the emergence of mass shit articles. Have a little faith, people. --Apostrophe 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please! I actually liked the idea of this article (& the first paragraph is not badly written), but the more I read this article, the less I could justify keeping it. The cultural references explained in this article are so painfully obvious (e.g., "The samurai were strong warriors in feudal Japan') or trivial (e.g., "Meowth: 'James, stop this crazy thing'-reference to The Jetsons, in which George says 'Jane, stop this crazy thing'") as to be absolutely worthless. Well, maybe not absolutely: I could entertain myself for hours by making fun of what's there, & risk censure for unnecessary cruelty on Wikipedia. Lastly, there are almost no links to this article, so I doubt that deleting it will create a pokemon hydra in its place. -- llywrch 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The page has been proctected as a result of the edit war going on. CoolKatt number 99999

What? No, it hasn't. You've added the {{vprotected}} template, for no reason I can fathom. It's not protected, and there's no vandalism going on. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete argh! Dottore So 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

• Delete worthless. Sabine's Sunbird 03:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

• Keep, list in cleanup—AFD isn't the page for these kinds of requests. The article is encyclopedic of itself, it just needs some help in its current state. Titoxd 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I was the one who added the cleanup tag myself, a while ago. And what do you mean that AFD isn't the place for this? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, liston to Titoxd, he's right for all we know. CoolKatt number 99999
    • I mean that any articles that do deserve an article but are not in good shape should go to cleanup, not to AFD. AFD is to get articles deleted, not fixed. While it is a good way to bring more eyes into the picture and start discussion, it is not the recommended way. AFD is too large and we've been trying to make it smaller for quite a while. These nominations just clog an already clogged process. It's in bad shape, but still salvageable. --Titoxd 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. Well, I honestly believe this list should be deleted, not cleaned up. I originally felt it merited cleanup instead of deletion (so I added the cleanup tag), but I have since changed my mind. I know AFD isn't the place for article that need improvement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think my brain imploded from reading it, I think there's probably one thing in there that isn't just rubbish- and we can't keep an article for just that, really. --Oppolo 15:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

• Delete. There's nothing in here that could possibly be salvaged that doesn't already belong in a more specific Pokemon article. -Sean Curtin 22:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

• Delete useless. -WindFish 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

• Delete: Oh please, dear God! "Ash passes on prune juice - Prunes are said to set off bowel movements, because of its high fiber content, which is why many people don't eat prunes" That's not a cultural reference! That's called stating the bleeding obvious where I come from! Jezze 18:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Now, that could be removed without removing the whole article! But delete anyway. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Something does not sound right, I think there might be sock puppets voting "delete", which is I think why most votes after Amren's are "delete," besides the last 3 votes should not count, nor should Splash's change of mind, because they came after the 5 day limit (September 2-6) to debate on this. If anyone can investigate the alleged sock puppets, I would be pleased. CoolKatt number 99999

It's a well established principle that anyone can vote or change their vote until someone closes the debate. It says as much on WP:AFD/Old.-Splash 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: That's a HILARIOUS list, as much as I love Pokémon I say kill. - Ferret 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, someone should investigate all "delete" votes after Amren's "keep" vote for sock puppets, which in voting, are against the rules. And saying kill would normally negate you liking Pokemon. CoolKatt number 99999

Silly - I meant kill the page not kill Pokémon. ;) - Ferret 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to check out the Special:Contibutions page for each of the people voting before making accusations. Please, assume good faith. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If I did that, then I'd vote what you vote (delete), which is highly unlikely. And to quote the AGF page: Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith. CoolKatt number 99999

I'm not sure that I can say anything to allay your suspicions, so I'll just wish you a nice day and hope someone else can give you the satisfaction you desire. (Without any sarcasm,) have a nice day. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tagging all those votes is an act of extraordinary poor form. I recognise at least half of those user names on sight as AfD regulars and names I see around the Wiki regularly, and can assure they are not sock-puppets. Besides, I'm sure the closing admin is capable of determining such things for themselves. -Splash 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you recognize them because they could be your sock puppets CoolKatt number 99999

Nothing like a bit of healthy paranoia to start the day! - Ferret 05:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999 Dude! I am not a "sock puppet". And indeed I feel slightly hurt! "I am not a number I am a free man!" (Hmm well I suppose on the internet I'm just an IP...... DAMN!) Jezze 22:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, your vote will stay, and will not be marked as possible sock puppet, and I'm sorry. CoolKatt number 99999

• DELETE; most of these are not cultural references or even trivia but just obvious facts. ♥purplefeltangel 23:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Warning: May be overparanoid person who did not bother to look at my userpage nor edit history. ♥purplefeltangel 03:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If I did so, I'd be voting "delete", which I will not CoolKatt number 99999

I'm not sure as to what the revelance of looking at somebody's edit history has to do with voting to delete an article. Perhaps you should notch back the paranoia and learn English? --Apostrophe 05:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seriously, this is not an article worth saving. Who would visit Wikipedia to specifically look up this kind of "info" anyway? Not to mention I'm a little miffed that the Pokemon anime article is now protected thanks toCoolKatt number 99999's obsession to include content that only lowers the quality of the article. WarChild 07:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.