Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Pokémon games
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fake Pokémon games[edit]
- Fake Pokémon games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Reliable sources are especially needed for an article like this and, well, they're not there. Or, as far as I could tell, on Google. Biruitorul Talk 06:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential Keep This article could potentially be kept if it would be made more reliable, there are as it stands on Google 424,000 search results I'm sure whoever works on this could find plenty of reliable sources. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you try that search in quotes, you'll see it gets 6 google hits. And obviously, none of them are reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If you take "list of" out of the quotes, you end up with just over 5000 hits, which might be a little more for the editors to work with if they were looking for reliable sources. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you try that search in quotes, you'll see it gets 6 google hits. And obviously, none of them are reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most Mods do not get any independent coverage, or any attention beyond the people who created or used them (and the latter is a very small group for any particular mod). I cannot see anything to make this an exception. The article lacks any references to back up claims that certain "fake versions" were famous or that their sale on eBay has been "massive". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete attempt to lump a variety of non-notable ROM hacks, pirate versions, mods, and the like into one article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really a topic; a mix of bootlegs, empty boxes, fan-games, and just random slurry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the user who originally prodded the article (see [1]). Nothing but original research, unverifiable speculation, and overall lack of verifiability. MuZemike 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources found. Versus22 talk 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pokemon Diamond and Jade might be notable, unlike the rest of the list which are all fan-made ROM hacks. Back when the series was at its peak of popularity, those two bootleg games came out and were widely released as "rare" Pokemon titles with their own cartridges, boxes and everything. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep as it may help someone --Thevilla2007 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.68 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009[reply]
- That is not a reason for keeping the article. Please read the verifiability policy and avoiding original research. MuZemike 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for contributing and as the saying go "Rome wasn't built in a day" -John Heywood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevilla2007 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fan-made hacks/mods, merge Diamond/Jade to Telefang. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (also in reply to Norse's above comment) Diamond/Jade could probably get its own article if notability can be established. MuZemike 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon Jade registers 21,300 hits on Google (including quotes); whether any are reliable remains to be seen, but notability might be there if someone digs deep enough. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (also in reply to Norse's above comment) Diamond/Jade could probably get its own article if notability can be established. MuZemike 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.