Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Catches a Pokémon

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Catches a Pokémon

Well, it's happening. The expansion of Pokemon-related articles (familiar to many on AfD as a core citation for why we could keep just about anything) is moving to yet lower ground with synopses for various episodes. Delete as yet more Pokemon-cruft. (Prodded but contested). Eusebeus 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep One of the first episodes of a very notable show--certainly more notable than other series which currently have individual-episode articles. I get 3,830 Google hits for "Ash Catches a Pokemon" plus a few hundred more for "Ash Catches a Pokémon". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have individual episode articles for plenty of other shows, why not this one? BryanG 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. Not every contested prod needs an AfD! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. While whether we should have articles on every episode of the show is a matter of debate, I think it's obvious that the first episode of one of the most notable anime shows of all time is notable. Loom91 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment The article itself states that this is the 3rd episode. Shiroi Hane 09:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pokemon episodes, or somesuch. This also applies to Star Trek, Dr Who, Seinfeld, Family Guy, Simpsons, and any other TV show who's fervent fans really, really need to get out more. Individual episodes need to be really important outside their own story arc to deserve their own articles. (The one where Kirk snogs Uhura would qualify, or "The Germans" in Fawlty Towers.) -- GWO
Comment Good luck on that Crusade.. your going to have episdoe pages miles in length for a series like dr who, or even the star treks.. EnsRedShirt 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gareth. Raggaga 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or if you really must have it merge. Jcuk 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'm definitely not a Pokemon fan, but I think TV episodes, especially pilot episodes, should be kept in order to keep a complete view of certain aspects of popular culture. Jared W 11:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with television episodes, especially early ones. --badlydrawnjeff :(WP:MEMES?) 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I can't wait to see this used as precedent when someone wants to break out the episodes of Head Cases into their own articles...--Isotope23 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why shouldn’t they? If the information exists, they might as well. It’d only be 2 articles. Anyway, it’s not comparable, Pokémon is a more notable series overall. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it is comparable; Pokémon is more notable than Head Cases only as a matter of your opinion. Notability is a fairly arbitrary designation. I happen to be of the opinion that neither are really notable... but notability isn't really a criteria for inclusion or deletion here.--Isotope23 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, wtf are you talking about? Notability is the primary criterion( “criteria” is plural) for inclusion or deletion. And Pokémon being more notable is not merely a matter of opinion: We’re talking about a show with hundreds of episodes( as opposed to two for Head Cases), ratings good enough to keep it on the air for what, 8 seasons now? And which, as part of a successful multi-billion dollar franchise, started a huge fad. Most people in numerous countries all over the world have at least heard of Pokémon, and more know it’s a cartoon than realize it started out as a video game. How many people do you think have even heard of Head Cases? I know I hadn’t until this discussion. Whether it’s notable enough to deserve an episode guide or episode articles is debatable, but it would be foolish to continue to pretend it’s not more notable than Head Cases. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the show is notable, has over 100 (200? 300?) episodes. If Star Trek (to name just one) has a list, why not Pokémon? -- ReyBrujo 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Precident has been set by other series.. Though this episode and this series is not notable to me, doesn't mean its not notable. EnsRedShirt 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad article, bad topic. I really wish we had some rules against chronicling every piddling thing that gets broadcast on TV. Brian G. Crawford 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the precident for per-episode articles seem to have been set some time ago. --Rob 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, and I've found individual episode articles helpful when I've been getting into a series.--BigCow 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand more and correct some stuff. I may add some notes and stuff, but I remember reading in the What Wikipedia is Not that if you have the right amount of info it's ok, but there are Family Guy episodes yet to air that have almost no info at all. However, some things are wrong here. Matty-chan 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited some stuff. Matty-chan 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't get it. This doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. In order to be in Wikipedia, this material is supposed to have been based on published material, and the source is supposed to be cited. Is there a section in WP:V that says it doesn't apply to Pokémon articles? What am I missing here? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Published ≠ printed; there's absolutely no reason why the series itself (in video form) can't be cited as a source here, since it has been (quite widely) published. (The fact that the article doesn't cite it is regrettable, but presumably easily fixed.) Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that, for basic, non-controversial information about TV shows (cast, crew, basic plot, airdates, etc), the show itself can be considered to be a source. Even if not, as has already been mentioned there are any number of online episode guides, such as serebii.net. Even if print sources are insisted upon, there are plenty of those, too. Episode information can be found in the now-defunct Pokemon Official Magazine, as well as actual books like Pojo's Unofficial Total Pokemon (ISBN 1572436794), Pojo's Unofficial Big Book of Pokemon (ISBN 1572433612), and several others. There's also plenty of Pokemon anime coverage in the major anime magazines as well, such as Anime Insider, Animerica, and NewType. Say what you will about the article, but verifiability is not not not not not an issue here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
I agree with this one completely. -User:Jimbo Wales"[1]
~Kylu (u|t) 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a PCP focus and is drastically improved. It needs templates and links like other shows have. You can’t attack the practice of having episode articles by targetting them individually. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eh oh. I started a topic about this at the Pokémon anime discussion page just before I saw this. I stay neutral for now. See also the episode guides made by other websites at List of Pokémon episodes#External links. Oh, and maybe we can do something with this too? -- Face 12:31, 7 May 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.