Talk:We All Live in a Pokémon World…: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Latest comment: 27 November 2023 by Salmancer in topic Delete
m →Deletion Discussion: Sorry for the flood in edits, the preview button is redirecting me to an error 404 page. |
→Delete: Added dissenting opinion on deletion |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:::I agree that "haven't heard of it" isn't a valid reason for deletion - isn't that part of what the wiki is for, to introduce you to Pokémon-related stuff that you never heard of before? Having said that, I don't think this article is notable anyway. I don't think the website had a significant impact on the fandom or community... and it was written by the website's creator, which is another strike. :/ [[Special:Contributions/Zesty Cactus|--]][[User:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#006400">'''Zesty'''</span>]][[User talk:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#3CB371">'''Cactus'''</span>]] 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | :::I agree that "haven't heard of it" isn't a valid reason for deletion - isn't that part of what the wiki is for, to introduce you to Pokémon-related stuff that you never heard of before? Having said that, I don't think this article is notable anyway. I don't think the website had a significant impact on the fandom or community... and it was written by the website's creator, which is another strike. :/ [[Special:Contributions/Zesty Cactus|--]][[User:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#006400">'''Zesty'''</span>]][[User talk:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#3CB371">'''Cactus'''</span>]] 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
What is outdated about this article? It is about a dead website, right? What updates have happened since? [[User:Kevorama0205|Kevorama0205]] ([[User talk:Kevorama0205|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
This | This page is basically spam, since it was created by the site's owner to advertise their site. Since it's long dead, there is even less of a reason to keep around this article on a website that nobody would have heard about if it wasn't for Bulbapedia giving them free advertising. It's been fifteen years, it's time to delete this embarrassment of an article. [[User:Raptor Jesus|Raptor Jesus]] ([[User talk:Raptor Jesus|talk]]) 02:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Based on the points made in [https://forums.bulbagarden.net/index.php?threads/candidates-for-merging-moving-mainspacing-splitting-discussion-thread.114138/page-6#post-4888711 this discussion], where staff agreed to keep the article, I '''oppose''' deletion. [[User:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#00d1bc">'''Land'''</span>]][[User talk:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#006699"><small>'''fish7'''</small></span>]] 07:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Also noting that the forum discussion indicated strong community support for keeping the article as well. [[User:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#00d1bc">'''Land'''</span>]][[User talk:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#006699"><small>'''fish7'''</small></span>]] 07:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Honestly I think this should be deleted. Notability is questionable and when covering a fansite we should be focusing the articles on the history of the fansite, where it was hosted, how it operated etc... Here we're just regurgitating every article on the fansite which becomes problematic especially in a case like this where the fansite is basicially a subjective blog, and thus only being used as a platform to rehash one person's hot takes. '''[[User:4iamking|<span style="font-family:noteworthy;color:#FF1493">4iam</span><span style="font-family:papyrus;color:#8A2BE2">king</span>]]''' 11:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::The fact that the article was up for 15 years probably makes the site more notable, in a paradoxical manner. I wouldn't delete it. It does seem to need a substantial trimming, considering it's quite long and summarizes multiple articles. Just the gist of what the site is about should suffice. (Also, a section about the article's history on Bulbapedia should be added.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 01:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:53, 27 November 2023
Kimberly
Someone noted that my article for We All Live in a Pokémon World... does not yet meet Bulbapedia standards. I have made a few formatting changes as stated in the manual of style, but I am new to Bulbapedia. What else must I do?
-Kimberly - unsigned comment from RageOfInnocence (talk • contribs)
Notable?
Is this site notable enough for its own article? I have never heard of it, and it doesn't seem to have played a major role in the fandom (or at least a role as big enough as Bulbagarden, Serebii.net, PokéBeach or Smogon). Then again, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Thoughts? --PAK Man Talk 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Major overhaul
I did quite the overhaul of this page, but am still afraid to take off the thing at the top. Anything else this article needs? Or is it pretty good to go? --BaileyPlaysPokemon 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete
It is understandable that PokéBeach, Smogon, Serebii, etc. have their own articles, as they are popular websites. It is also understandable that websites like Pokémon Crater have articles as they, at one point or another, were popular. But I have never heard of this before I saw this page, so this page should go. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You've never heard of it, so it should be deleted? That is the most arrogant, self-centered justification I've ever heard in my life. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just having personally never heard of is not justification for deleting it, no. However, I really don't think this is a major Pokémon fansite that deserves an article. Furthermore, the person who created it is the webmaster, putting it on even shakier ground. If the site was big back in the early 2000s (when it started), then it would deserve and article, but I don't believe it was. Unfortunately, search results are too polluted with the song to properly check how popular it is. --SnorlaxMonster 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that "haven't heard of it" isn't a valid reason for deletion - isn't that part of what the wiki is for, to introduce you to Pokémon-related stuff that you never heard of before? Having said that, I don't think this article is notable anyway. I don't think the website had a significant impact on the fandom or community... and it was written by the website's creator, which is another strike. :/ --ZestyCactus 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just having personally never heard of is not justification for deleting it, no. However, I really don't think this is a major Pokémon fansite that deserves an article. Furthermore, the person who created it is the webmaster, putting it on even shakier ground. If the site was big back in the early 2000s (when it started), then it would deserve and article, but I don't believe it was. Unfortunately, search results are too polluted with the song to properly check how popular it is. --SnorlaxMonster 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
What is outdated about this article? It is about a dead website, right? What updates have happened since? Kevorama0205 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This page is basically spam, since it was created by the site's owner to advertise their site. Since it's long dead, there is even less of a reason to keep around this article on a website that nobody would have heard about if it wasn't for Bulbapedia giving them free advertising. It's been fifteen years, it's time to delete this embarrassment of an article. Raptor Jesus (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the points made in this discussion, where staff agreed to keep the article, I oppose deletion. Landfish7 07:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also noting that the forum discussion indicated strong community support for keeping the article as well. Landfish7 07:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly I think this should be deleted. Notability is questionable and when covering a fansite we should be focusing the articles on the history of the fansite, where it was hosted, how it operated etc... Here we're just regurgitating every article on the fansite which becomes problematic especially in a case like this where the fansite is basicially a subjective blog, and thus only being used as a platform to rehash one person's hot takes. 4iamking 11:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that the article was up for 15 years probably makes the site more notable, in a paradoxical manner. I wouldn't delete it. It does seem to need a substantial trimming, considering it's quite long and summarizes multiple articles. Just the gist of what the site is about should suffice. (Also, a section about the article's history on Bulbapedia should be added.) Salmancer (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
