Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pokémopolis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - original research sliced out, rest should be merged somewhere. - SimonP 14:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémopolis

Almost entirely original research. Article is about a non-notable fictional city which has only ever appeared in a single filler episode of the Pokemon anime and has had no long-term plot significance. Sinistro 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Merge what little is not the author's own theory with the appropriate pokecruft page. Note to author: unless you are a cartoon character, you are not a pokemon trainer. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:12, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokécruft. Original research. POV theory. Nestea 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agreeing with BD2412. See the Neopets articles for how this Pokécruft should be sorted out properly. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 21:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --Morlark 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the original research, or turn it into an article about this website. Ketsuban (is better than you) 22:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate Pokemon page -CunningLinguist 00:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, part of Project Pokénav. Almafeta 15:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's okay to say that "some have theorised...", but "I think..." is unacceptable. SujinYH 15:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 09:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete pov, original research, nonnotable fancruft.  Grue  19:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav should find a way to create single pages covering multiple locations. Mozzerati 18:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 17:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Uh guys, have you taken a look at the article lately? There is no mention of 'I' or 'me' on it!
  • This does not change the fact that the article remains original research and its subject of dubious notability. The use of the personal pronoun was not the only reason for the article's nomination.Sinistro 12:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's fine by me. Delete it if you want; I can always make other articles.
• Keep. I have been known as Mr. Suffix who made neologistic -polis articles, but this isn't one of them. Also, I am a big fan of Pokemon, and this article seems to be of interest. --SuperDude 05:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.