Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange Islands

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Islands

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

Pokemon is cool, but this article is an un-notable in-universe plot repetition with no reliable sourcing, and as such is already covered in the setting and plot sections of the various articles on Pokemon stories. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • keep come on this has more then 50 episodes, if this gets deleted just go delete Battle Frontier and Sinnoh they have had about the same amount of episodes. as for not being sourced that is no reson to get deleted. --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not the reason it is being nominated, it is nominated for a lack of notability which means there are no sources to add. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This might not be "properly sourced," but it is notable-- it just needs to be properly sourced. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And if that is true, I look foreword to seeing some links posted on this page to show that that is true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The consensus was to keep (66%). One of the sources provided is an article from the New York Times that establishes the "existence" of the Orange Islands in the Pokemon milieu - that satisfies WP:N, and refutes the objection to the article made by the nom. Note also Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. The Transhumanist 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Non-admin closure overturned, relisted with closing statement added as opinion. Note that WP:N requires more than proof of existence. In its current state, the article fails to meet the standard of multiple substantial sources and needs to be deleted (the NYT mention fails this standard). I relist to allow editors to find those sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evidently a major ongoing location within a major television series. If there's an issue regarding real-world sourcing, etc., that can be handled at the article level. I might suggest, however, renaming the article to Orange Islands (Pokemon) just to prevent any possible confusion. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Articles lacking sources from July 2006" ← It seems far from evident that the article can be sourced independently and, in its current state, also fails WP:NOR. I could have deleted under that policy alone (nevermind the in-universe treatment of the subject), but I wanted to give editors a chance to remedy the problems. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - most of the time I stay out of the fictitious places debates, but as a main setting for a universe as popular as Pokemon is, I think this one definitely meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (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.