Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon video game glitches

Pokémon video game glitches

This page is unecessary and mostly non-notable; all the glitches can be merged into their respective game pages, and don't need their own article. Also reads like a strategy guide on how to obtain the glitches. Zxcvbnm 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless cruft not important to anyone but unscrupulous Pokémon gamers, who can find all this out from fansites anyways. Where're the sources? The whole thing's OR. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up! OR is no reason for deleting the article; that would be a sort of violating WP:POINT. If it reads like a Guide, it needs cleanup or expert attention, not an AfD. Vikrant Phadkay 15:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything apart from OR in the article? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources can be added. This is not OR! Vikrant Phadkay 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically there is, the Nintendo statement about the Japanese Surf glitch in Diamond and Pearl. --kenobi.zero 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Show me the sources then.--Zxcvbnm 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Official sources cannot be added. Only three have any real recognition, but that is all they have. TTN 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bulk of the article is pure original research, and the few verifiable bits are surrounded by it. Only the existence of MissingNo. and a few others need (the ones with official statements by Nintendo) to be mentioned somewhere, but that is without the junk. TTN 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion there are too few non-OR sources for each glitch to warrant the existence of this article. I agree that some of the glitches should be merged with the articles of the games. --kenobi.zero 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Some could be merged per above, but this is mostly originally researched gamecruft. What is it about videogames that attracts so much cruft anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Jauerback 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if anything, merge all into their own articles. I can see if one were to merge the glitches to each their own seperate game artciles, but these are all in the game, these aren't OR issues at all. All of these things are veribfiable. Missingno is the most famous, the mew glitch is very popular for getting mew, the berry glitch had to be fixed with Jirachi, the DP surf thing was very popular and Nintendo had to FIX it for the USA release. And I can look for the other sources for Glitch City, which is still in the game and is easily gotten to. The fact that Nintendo would never talk about Glitch City or Missingno in a million years doesn't affect the fact that these things exist, and should rightfully be at least mentioned in the article once someone finds sites talking about them. Toastypk 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity It's all right here. I beg you to consider this. Nintendo will never talk about something like this, but it still exists.
- Those aren't reliable sources. They need some sort of official source or publication talking about them, not some fansite (They're OR otherwise). MissingNo. has Nintendo's acknowledgment, but all that requires is a mention somewhere. TTN 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, Nintendo would never talk about this kind of thing! But it doesn't change that fact that it still exists. All we have are other people, and that doesn't automatically make it OR. Hell, I even found a video showing it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VvAY-Rhzo&mode=related&search= Three sources, if that isn't enough proof of its existance, I don't know what is. Toastypk 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is about verifiability, not truth. Even then, this is not a good enough standalone topic. TTN 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still been verified; three links, two showing what it is and how it's done, and one showing a freaking video. What other verifying is needed?

Maybe my definition of "verifying" is different from yours, I dunno. This is all just so aggrivating...

Maybe I'm not on the same page here. This at least deserves to be mentioned in the R/B/Y article if all these were to be merged into their respective game articles. Toastypk 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on this site is verified by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not fansites. Only ones that have been mentioned by Nintendo will be mentioned anywhere, but they will likely only have a sentence or two. TTN 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the only sites that would talk about this WOULD be fansites? Is only something right from Nintendo going to work, no matter how many others have mentioned it? For some things, that isn't possible..Toastypk 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article lacks reliable sources, it is merged or deleted. We don't include everything on this site. Either something from Nintendo or just a reliable source needs to talk about it to be acceptable. TTN 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you proved that the glitch worked, and recorded it, you're doing it yourself. Think of it like this. Art museums only show art from established artists who went to art school. Now, you might have taught yourself to draw just as well, but the museum sure as hell isn't going to accept your art unless you went to art school. Get my drift?--Zxcvbnm 20:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a week I'll work on it in an attempt to save it as it"s aworthy article. - ~VNinja ~ 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, who cares about a few glitches in a video game? If you showed this to anyone you knew, would they? The only person who would get any benefit out of this whatsoever is a person looking to mess up their 10-year-old copy of Pokemon Red, and that's not many people. Even if there are a few references, it's non notable.--Zxcvbnm 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only glitch that is really notable is Missingno. and that can be a blurb on the Red/Blue page. For more in-depth info people can go to Bulbapedia or other Pokémon sites. Libertyernie2 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a game guide Corpx 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as cruft. Also per WP:NOT#HOWTO. As metioned several times above, merge some of the glitches into the appropriate game articles. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for Pokemon trivia nor is it a how-to guide. This should all be in Bulbapedia, if it's even notable enough for it. I have my doubts. --Charlene 5:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep this. Darrenhusted 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the appropriate articles and/or Delete. While all of them can be sourced to the games themselves, we are not a game guide, and shouldn't be giving these glitches their own article - if anything, we should put a brief summary on each glitch in the appropraite articles (Pokémon Red and Blue, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). Even if we don't, I don't think Florida is going to burn just because we got rid of cruft. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, any noteworthy glitches can be mentioned within the actual article if sourced. (jarbarf) 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the original research, guide material, and unreferenced statements, most of which is regularly added by well-meaning anons and inexperienced users. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all that, and what do you have left? A few lines that can well be included in their respective game articles. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: "no reason to keep this"? Yes, but you are arguing to change things, thus it is YOUR job to make it clear why things should be changed. It would be legitimated for me to say "no reason to delete" but not for someone arguing the oppisite case to say "there is no reason to keep"

Either way, wiki may not be a "how-to" but this is not a how to either. Little of this page is devoted to telling you "how to" do something, if any at all, and that is just saying how a glith is triggered. any original research hasn't stayed on for more than a second , Brandon dilbeck, and much that is not in any way original research. (However, that should not be argued here, but on the talk page)