Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerupt

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 was Keep (pending merge discussion on Pokémon articles). WaltonAssistance! 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camerupt

Camerupt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Largely fan-cruft, WP:NOT a game guide, seems non-notable, no verifiable refs outside sites tailored to the subject ^demon[omg plz] 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As ^demon says, Wikipedia isn't a game guide, which large parts of this article seem to be. The only way in which it would be respectable enough to fall outside this criterion would be if it were strictly cleaned up. Even then, we'd be left with the issue of the notability of this non existant entity, only ever found as a collection of pixels on a system's screen. If we decide to keep all articles about every pokemon (and pokeball, and other equipment (it's been a long time :)), then we would have no reason not to have an article on every Smurf, Womble, Teletubby, walk-on actor. To give further weight to my feelings on this, I'm going to furnish you with a simile: having an article on every Pokemon is very much like taking a notable workplace (Microsoft, perhaps) and creating an article on every employee/associate, from Gates himself right down to the caretakers. I would say that having this number of articles on notable-only-by-association people/characters/entities is ludicrous, and would suggest that all but the most notable Pokemon (ie Pikachu) have their artcles merged into one list. Of course, there are too many dedicated pokemon editors here for that ever to happen, so I would suggest the stubbification, or better still deletion, of the article mentioned in the nomination. Martinp23 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - if you're going to nominate the article for a single Pokemon out of multiple hundred articles on individual Pokemon, the gap in the list would be unacceptable and would single out this particular Pokemon for no good reason. Either nominate the articles for all or most Pokemon (you could probably keep Pikachu and a few others like Mewtwo and Charmander), or don't nominate any at all.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The hope is that this AfD can guage community consensus, before (perhaps) doing a larger nom in future. Martinp23 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - in fact, I feel that by you singling out this one Pokemon for deletion (why not Seaking? why not Gastly?) this is almost a case of WP:POINT. Also see Wikipedia:Pokemon test.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course it is (if you'll excuse the sarcasm). WP:POINT is for disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, and I see no disruption here ;). The pokemon test is specifically for non-Pokemon releated articles of low notability, and the view given there of the notability of Pokemon is not exactly flattering. If you take a look at the related discussion of the past, such as the results of the poll at Wikipedia:Poképrosal, which says that Pokemon articles fall under WP:FICT (a statement of the obvious, if ever there was one). This notability guideline dictates that minor characters should be amalgamated into one "list of characters" article, as I have suggested above. If you wish to do a mass nom of all non-notable Pokemon articles, then I invite you to do so, and this debate can probably be closed. Martinp23 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Response - no, I'm not going to do that, not least because I can't be bothered adding the AfD tag to 450+ articles. I'd prefer all the Pokemon articles were just kept for the moment. If it were really an issue we should have some sort of centralised community discussion about whether the minor Pokemon articles should stay or go, and a broad community consensus could be achieved which could then lead to the deletion of these minor Pokemon articles.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters, which shows a consensus at the bottom. Martinp23 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. There are plans to merge it and its pre-evolved form, Numel, together in the future. AgentPeppermint 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I don't necessarily believe that Pokémon are inherently notable, I think that it would just be a big mess if we started to zap some of the articles on the individual Pokémon. Maybe Camerupt isn't as recognizable as, say, Pikachu, but I believe that, per WP:FICT, "minor" and "major" status are relative terms -- and because of those intentionally vague terms, I'll grant every Pokémon the benefit of the doubt as a non-fanatic of the game. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable cartoon character. Even taking into account game/animated series/trading cards, difficult to see where this character has been the subject of multiple independent third party sources. Mentions in passing and as a list yes, but main subject of a source no. This and any other article has to stand or fall on it's own merits. If it doesn't pass the notability criteria bar, and leaves a hole or a red link in a series, that's too bad. - fchd 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has appeared in the anime. Pleasehelp 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is an important question here, that nobody has ever provided a coherent answer to. WHY can we not delete one particular article in separation from everything else? -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In a way, we do it all the time. We have to do so, otherwise no sub-standard article would be deleted as long as comparable articles remain. But the Pokemon articles are difficult to deal with appropriately; where do you draw the line? I'm in favour of restricting them to a list, but it's never going to happen. Adrian M. H. 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There may or may not be a well-defined line. The fact that there isn't one is not grounds to keep things which are clearly below the line. Having said that, I do avocate keeping until the merger is finished. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course most pokémon are nonnotable, that's why the merging is going on. Please let the merging finish before deciding to remove this. TheBlazikenMaster 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep pending the merger. As TBM says above me, there is a project underway to merge the individual characters into a list format. It's underway and should be allowed to continue. JodyB talk 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A list format would probably be even worse than the way we have it now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This needs to be discussed as a whole. 491/493 (Pikachu and Mewtwo are commonly-named exceptions) of the articles are all in the same boat. I suggest a larger debate instead of one AFD on one of the 491 problematic articles. hbdragon88 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - no that's a bad idea. You would undoubtedly get a train wreck, with some contributors saying this one or that one is different and deserves to stay, which would lead to a "no consensus" decision which helps no-one. fchd 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above and ongoing project. JJL 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep pending discussion of potential merger. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delay AFD: Uh, yeah... Merger and stuff. The merger is actually on hold right now due to the the current merged pages being under fire, and our merged-page structure being under question, but as soon as those are settled, we'll get right back on it. You Can't See Me! 02:30, 24 May 2007 (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.