Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banned episodes of Pokémon

Banned episodes of Pokémon

Contains original research, unencyclopaedic tone, a POV title (banned? or just not shown for some reason?) and - in the end - I reckon it's Pokémoncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep When one or more episodes of a popular show are banned (or withheld or whatever you prefer to call it), there's usually reasoning behind it and in most cases is quite interesting. The Porygon seisure epsiode in particular made worldwide headlines when it occured... I remember reading about it long before Pokemon was well-known in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was reading this just this morning, and I'm not one for trawling through pages of Pokecruft. This information is interesting and notable. Vashti 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Quite notable & encyclopedic. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is interesting and seems notable. Metamagician3000 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong Delete - read the article, please, chaps. Not a single one of these episoes has been banned by any normally recognised definition of the word: they're just not shown. The writer speculates that the episodes have been withdrawn, but gives no proof at all. The episode with the epilepsy-inducing flashes is covered (better) elsewhere, and even that has not actually been banned. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, speculative fancruft that is potentially untrue. Vizjim 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

...so rename the page, then? Vashti 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To what, though? Episodes of Pokemon that don't seem to get shown any more, though we should legally point out that nobody has formally withdrawn them from circulation, at least we don't have any evidence of their having done so? Vizjim 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Controversial episodes of Pokemon? That would cover the differing attitudes towards some of the episodes across countries. Vashti 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So then all we'd need to do is change the tone and add sources. In my book, wrong tone, wrong title and no references is a delete :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Vizjim (I'm starting to really like that guy). If it must be kept, move to Episodes of Pokemon that don't seem to get shown any more, though we should legally point out that nobody has formally withdrawn them from circulation, at least we don't have any evidence of their having done so. Definately don't keep it here; this is a textbook example of a misleading title. ergot 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although it could use some more source verification (already tagged for that). --cholmes75 15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am not a Pokemon fan but I found the article pretty interesting. Would maybe add a tag to get some sources listed so it doesn't seem like original research. --Zer0faults 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a quick google search also shows many of these as being banned. I dont have the time to verify the original sources however. --Zer0faults 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this search? Because I can't see a single reliable reference saying that any of these episodes have been banned, just that certain commercial networks aren't showing them. Vizjim 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per Vizjim. After actually reading the article, it's obvious that this is NOT encyclopedic at all. -- Kicking222 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete per Vizjim. There isn't a factoid here that shouldn't be mentioned in the articles to the individual eps, and the Pokemon fedayeen being what it is, there would have to be. Ravenswing 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I also found it interesting, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Aplomado ^talk 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Mr. Lenahan. - CNichols 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible delete with icing and cherries on top per nom. and Vizjim. YES, this essay is interesting. NO, being interesting does not override the three fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, of which this article violates all three. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but major editing It needs a major rewriting. Major. Jebusman says so. --Jebusman 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be moved, because "banned" is not the right word, and citations added. Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs to be rewritten a bit, with possibly a title change, but it is full of useful information (to some) that's too long to just stick on the bottom of the Pokémon (anime) article. Censorship is one of those things that should be recorded, and it is essential information to the Pokémon anime article (unless we're planning to delete that, too). And besides, at least it's not just another list. -- Lampbane 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Vashti and Starblind. I'm surprised this has been nominated. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep it. User_talk:Bobabobabo
• Delete: Interesting, sure. However it has major problems with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR that I don't think can be overcome. --Hetar 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I thought this was a very interesting article. - Richardcavell 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we should create articles on each of these episodes individually, and put a section in each labeled controversy over the episode or something like that. Cabby2 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Cabby2, especially since some people are making episode guides, and Computer Soldier Porygon has one. I wouldn't object to keeping it though. Matty-chan 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and give it a throughout mopping (the "really really really throughout" kind of mopping, you know). Though I'd definitely like to see this getting integrated into the Pokémon episode articles themselves (once they exist for each episode in question), after which this could be turned into a category. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to a different title. Can't think of a good one, though. But delete if no reliable sources are found (people appear to be finding some, however, from what I read above). LjL 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I really liked this piece and I think that it stands to good reason to be on wikipedia. I think that the title could be redirected and changed to Controversial episodes/Unaired episodes But seriously, it was enjoyed and should not be deleted. Galoisprotege 2:29 19 May 2006
• Comment Whether or not this article is deleted, the information regarding the Porygon seizures is notable and should be preserved. --Algorithm 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Or clean up and merge with a related article. Most of the episodes are not actually "banned", but rather never shown. I found this page to be informative, although it does require some cleaning up. --hirokazu 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Andrew Lenahan - Rudykog 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Now that I think about it, Keep until all the episodes have their own seperate articles. Then make into a category, perhaps a subcategory for "Pokémon episodes". Matty-chan 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful article of reference. --FlyingPenguins 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it. It's not original research, I've seen this list many times. Sources can be found. Plus,when episodes of a very popular kids show are yanked for whatever reason, I consider that notable. The title of the article reads more like a magazine headline and REALLY needs to be changed, maybe to Unaired episodes of Pokemon, but the info here is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Seems notable to me. I often come to this article, and was definitely surprised to see this on AfD... -- RattleMan 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.  Grue  13:40, 21 May 2006 (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.