- 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 redirect to Pokemon#Fan community. Consensus is clear that a separate article is not justified and with no real consensus between redirect and delete we default to redirect. Davewild ( talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nuzlocke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, rationale being that the article has sources. Nevertheless I really don't think this Pokemon trivia is worthy of a standalone article: essentially it's fancruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable thing made up by a bored kid that got posted online, not encyclopedic, and definitely not notable enough for a standalone article. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ Chrislk02:It may have been made up by someone but isn't everything? The multitude of Kotaku articles on this matter and that entire 1000+ word article don't prove this is notable? --☣ Anar chyte☣ 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Per above: a subpopulation's private interest in an ephemeral passtime. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Move to Pokemon#Fan community as suggested below. I also considered moving I saw no obvious target but this is a good option.
Deleteunfortunately because News found several results while Books found a recently published book and thefreelibrary had the IBTimes link. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. It's worth mentioning if no one else has noticed that this was nominated for a DYK. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) - Redirect Pokemon#Fan community Nuzlocke is worthy of mention wrt. the reliable sources (Kotaku, IBTimes, iDigital Times etc.) in the article, but I don't see it deserveing a separate article, especially not in this state. Pokemon#Fan community already has a bullet point about this which I think well sums up everything needed to be mentioned.野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 02:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge any relevant content to Pokemon#Fan community. Separate article not required. Blethering Scot 16:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As Anarchyte said, the amount of sources in the article establishes notability. At this point, you're just arbitrarily deciding what's notable and what's not. User:Logan The Master
- Delete or redirect. The sources are of low-quality (mostly just what looks like WP:NEWSBLOG posts, one of which is sourced to Reddit; plus a cite to Bulbapedia, which is a wiki, and several what looks like the personal website of the person who invented it.) This is perhaps enough to give it a sentence in the Pokemon article's fan community section, but not remotely enough to justify giving it its own article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @ Aquillion: Of the 6 references, 1 is from a news blog, 1 is from the official site and 4 are valid and reliable sources. -- Anar chyte 08:11, 4 June 2015 (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.