Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Felina Ivy
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 no consensus, so keep. I count 16 keep (13 keep + 3 merge) and 11 delete. Deathphoenix 03:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Professor Felina Ivy[edit]
Pseudo-professor-cruft? With a mere 38 unique hits on google [1], how is this possibly encyclopedic information? Are fictitious characters in the pokémon universe immune to the Google test? GRider\talk 17:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, they're not. I suppose someone will want to merge this to a list of minor characters or something, but personally I'd prefer deletion. Radiant! 18:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, We have enough of this fancruft, and it's a minor character no less. Inter 21:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Er, I'm going to have to vote Keep, as it makes no sense to single this one out and delete it. Clearly it's part of a set. Xezbeth 21:48, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be helpful then if additional articles within that set were listed? This reads as circular reasoning to me. GRider\talk 23:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It does if it's a test case for a whole category. But then you knew that, because in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brian Doherty you wrote:
- No vote, but please don't add every single one of these to VfD at once. Just do a few to begin with. --Xezbeth 17:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Further reading for voters: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machinedramon and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kaseidramon. BM's argument in the former (which mentions Pokemon) will highlight some of the difficulties present here.
Looking at Pokémon (anime)#Other_characters it appears that this article has been broken out of a section in a larger article in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Articles_covering_subtopics, and that other, more minor, characters have been kept in the list in the main article. This isn't the same as someone just recolouring the redlinks at List of Digimon. Weak Keep. Uncle G 22:55, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)- Interesting. Would this then imply that if there were enough granular detail about any given subject, such that it would make a main topic article too large, it would then become worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because the subtopic overshadows the parent article? No matter if it is completely unencyclopedic? GRider\talk 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-written article on a subject of great interest to a substantial number of people. Another demonstration that the 'Google test' may be great at providing evidence for a keep vote, but it is absolutely useless as substantiation for a delete vote. The reason is simple: Many encyclopedic subjects are not well-represented on the web. And while it's easy to check when Google gives a false positive by providing unrelated hits, there is no easy way of checking these false negatives. Andrewa 23:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that the google test is flawed here because Pokemon characters are not well represented on the web? A search for "pokemon" and "character" gets 533 thousand hits. If this was a significant character, surely she'd get more than 38. Delete, or failing that Merge. DaveTheRed 01:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Nope, I'm trying to tell you that this character may not be well represented, but that's not why I claim the Google test has limits, nor do I claim that the Google test is flawed. It's just misapplied. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think the google test can be misused both ways, depending on the subject. The subject matter is key, and is often overlooked by those who think it's all in the numbers. It's easy for many unencyclopedic things to get a substantial number of google hits, through self promotion, having names in common, as well as various things that exist only on the internet, hence displaying all references to a subject, rather than what is generally thought to be a mere sample from which one can extrapolate. Likewise many subjects are not well represented on the internet, mostly things that predated the internet and have not seen widespread discussion since its advent. Holding, say, minor historic figues of antiquity to the same significant google results as, say, porn stars, is ridiculous. The google test has its limits. Severe ones. And one must keep in mind not only the number of hits, but what the hits actually are. I've come across many pages that had no apparent mention of the subject I was searching for, and this must be taken into account. I will say this, however: something that turns up 0 google hits is very unlikely to be notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, is somewhat unlikely to exist. Of course, they may be exceptions to this too. My point is false positives and false negatives are both common, and anyone who thinks any Pokemon character is underrepresented on the web is delusional. My vote is below. -R. fiend 04:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree with some of this and think it should be discussed but not here, see Wikipedia talk:Google test#Asymmetry. But I'm afraid I think your assessment delusional borders on being a personal attack. Peace! No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't mean for it to be a personal attack. But I do maintain that one subject that is not underrepresented on the web in any form is Pokemon. -R. fiend 21:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: IMO that's a bit too sweeping. Agree Pokemon is very well represented, but this coverage is not necessarily balanced or complete. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't mean for it to be a personal attack. But I do maintain that one subject that is not underrepresented on the web in any form is Pokemon. -R. fiend 21:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree with some of this and think it should be discussed but not here, see Wikipedia talk:Google test#Asymmetry. But I'm afraid I think your assessment delusional borders on being a personal attack. Peace! No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think the google test can be misused both ways, depending on the subject. The subject matter is key, and is often overlooked by those who think it's all in the numbers. It's easy for many unencyclopedic things to get a substantial number of google hits, through self promotion, having names in common, as well as various things that exist only on the internet, hence displaying all references to a subject, rather than what is generally thought to be a mere sample from which one can extrapolate. Likewise many subjects are not well represented on the internet, mostly things that predated the internet and have not seen widespread discussion since its advent. Holding, say, minor historic figues of antiquity to the same significant google results as, say, porn stars, is ridiculous. The google test has its limits. Severe ones. And one must keep in mind not only the number of hits, but what the hits actually are. I've come across many pages that had no apparent mention of the subject I was searching for, and this must be taken into account. I will say this, however: something that turns up 0 google hits is very unlikely to be notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, is somewhat unlikely to exist. Of course, they may be exceptions to this too. My point is false positives and false negatives are both common, and anyone who thinks any Pokemon character is underrepresented on the web is delusional. My vote is below. -R. fiend 04:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Nope, I'm trying to tell you that this character may not be well represented, but that's not why I claim the Google test has limits, nor do I claim that the Google test is flawed. It's just misapplied. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that the google test is flawed here because Pokemon characters are not well represented on the web? A search for "pokemon" and "character" gets 533 thousand hits. If this was a significant character, surely she'd get more than 38. Delete, or failing that Merge. DaveTheRed 01:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, minor fictious character, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 00:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably, but I guess the more likely outcome will be merge/redirect to some goddamn Pokemon page, and I can live with that. I believe we have an entry or two for Pokemon, do we not? If this was broken out of a Pokearticle already because the article got too big, well, that's the old Everyking Ashlee Simpson argument all over again, and that one doesn't wash with me. Fix it. -R. fiend 00:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pokemon fancruft, and it's not as if Wikipedia is short of Pokemon material. --Calton 02:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all Pokemon knowledge. —RaD Man (talk) 02:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ba-dum-bum.
- Merge into an article on minor Pokemon characters, or failing that, keep. -Sean Curtin 03:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep--lots of content, seems too big to merge .Meelar (talk) 04:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge: A whole lot of people online would refer to her only as Professor Ivy; if she's the only one in the Pokemon world, why would people spell out her full name? Still, "professor ivy" only gets 2,000-some google hits, most of which are false. I say we create a page with all the other less notable Pokemon professors, which would probably be all but Professor Oak. Of course, we'd have to trim down some of this information. And by "we" I mean other people-LtNOWIS 05:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Elm and Birch are also very notable in their own right... kelvSYC 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable information. ComCat 08:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pokecruft. --Bucephalus 14:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I hate the Pokémon series, but this is a notable character in what is sadly a large universe. 129.177.61.124 15:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-noteable fancruft. Martg76 19:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Please! --Neigel von Teighen 21:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. In the Pokémon universe, Ivy is a very significant character (albeit unique to the anime), as her introduction pretty much starts the second season of Pokémon (and the premise of the GS Ball saga). kelvSYC 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It hurts to say this, but keep. (Passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test!) - David Gerard 13:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to a page about all of the Pokémon researchers. While she might not deserve a page of her own, she still is important enough to merit reference of some kind. Ok, perhaps all that information on Ivy is not absolutely necessary, so one could trim her entry a bit while merging it, too. Sinistro 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't care for this stuff at all, but clearly there are people who care about this, and the article is reasonably well done. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: Come on now, this is a good article!! -- unsigned vote by 64.172.25.87, whose first edit this vote was.
- Keep The Recycling Troll 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete pokecruft. —Korath (Talk) 05:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable character in notable fictional universe. Gamaliel 16:17, 5 Mar 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.