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. Completely unsourced, and far too game-guide-y to merge in toto. To the extent that the topic is relevant to Pokémon Red and Blue and can be reliably sourced, editors may choose to add information about this topic to that article. Nandesuka (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch City[edit]

Glitch City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Largely original research with no good sources or verifiability. A single glitch from Pokémon Red and Blue. This page was recently redirect. Artichoker (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the pattern has been to redirect all such bug pages to Pokemon Red and Blue AND THEN not include anything on the bugs.
I don't play pokemon, and have little interest in it generally. However these bugs are interesting from a programming and gaming perspective and certainly noteworthy enough to at least warrant a section on these glitches in the main pokemone red/blue article.
Since that isn't happening, I feel it is better to presever the original Glitch City article.
Artichoker claims these bugs are fiction (see the Pokemon Red and Blue discussion page). That, of course, if false. They are well documented, as the links on this page, or any simple google search, will verify.
I have also seen objections based on original research. Apart perhaps from a few comments here and there, this objection doesn't make sense, since these bugs are well known and have been verified by many gamers. Again, simply see the links or do a google search.
That really just leaves the notability argument. As I was researching computer software bugs on wikipedia, I stumbled over the Glitch City article (and Missingno article) and found it fascinating, it certainly struck me as noteworthy, and I'm not a Pokemon fan. And these glitches are noteworthy enough to get much discussion by gamers. Since this is not a science article, obviously I can't point to scientific papers citing it, but that isn't really the spirit of "notability" with a cultural object such as this.
And at least to maintain NPOV, bugs such as Glitch City deserve mention. It is a verifiable fact that these pokemon games had a number of bugs.
However I might change my mind if the pokemon red/blue page included a section on the bugs (as it used to). Although even then, I think the Glitch City entry deserved at least an extra line or two compared to what it had. And I also fear that history will just repeat itself, and the glitches section will get deleted after a short wait.
So I say no to the deletion for the time being.
MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


TenPoundHammer said "And the nominator never said the bugs were fiction."
Here is the actual quote.
Artichoke "You misunderstood WP:FICTION, the glitch was from a Pokémon game which was fictional, therefore the glitch is part of the fiction."
MKULTRA "No, the bugs are not works of fiction. That would only apply to the normal levels and monsters, not the bugs."
Objections that a bug is an "Underground" bug are senseless. If anything, the fact that Pokemon Red and Blue had bugs that allowed "underground" cheating just makes it more notable.
A bug consistently found in a piece of software and widely reported is not "original research" in the sense wikipedia intends. I've now come across several YouTube videos of Glitch City which may be added as references to the article.
MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sukecchi, can you please sustain your arguments? AFDs are not a voting process. So just saying "as per above" adds nothing to the discussion. Thank you.--201.103.31.245 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That IP comment above, was me. I was looking at this matter for so long, that my session expired. Sorry if there is any misunderstanding. --Legion fi (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that not acceptable? I agree with TenPoundHammer's statements. "per above" has been acceptable before. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, AFDs are NOT VOTING. We are not voting. We are giving ARGUMENTS and SUGGESTION about the future of the article, either we keep it and why, or either we delete it and why, or either we merge it and why, or any other possible action and why. Just agreeing may be valid, but it is useless in an afd. --Legion fi (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All my arguments are the same as his, therefore I have nothing else to say. Sorry. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main argument for the article is that it is relevant to "programming" and "gaming". Those claims are not referenced, and cannot be validated by reliable sources. Also, the content relating to this matter is very technical, going as far as mentioning "values FF" which the vast majority of people may not acknowledge as the hexadecimal representation of the decimal 255.
I admit these is the kind of information I would like to find if I was to search into Pokemon articles, specially if I was looking for glitches in the Red and Blue editions. But the lack of inclusion of this information in the Red and Blue Pokemon article does not mean that it should have its own article. Just because the issue has not yet been addressed or because it doesn't harm anyone to keep it, doesn't mean that it should be kept. This last point is related to WP:N and WP:V just to mention some policies (which I don't mean to do heavily).
Also, the subject may arise discussion from gamers. But lets remember Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussions constitute OR and therefore shall not be included. If this is indeed a "science article" please add "scientific papers" to establish notability, as there are non so far. Or try creating another article about those "science" concerns (like buffer overflow and segmentation fault).
Most of the links on the article are self-published. Self-published sources are only to be used in articles relating about those sources. The more people involved in the fact checking of a source, the more reliable that source is. This is clearly mentioned in WP:RS, trying to comply to WP:NOR and WP:V.
MKULTRA33 has also tried to establish notability by asserting this is a "cultural object". Lets remember that Wikipedia is not about trivia. As knowing the gameplay of a Pokemon game and its more noted glitches may be a "cultural object", the exact aspects of how the glitch behaves and how it is produced are not, which constitutes the majority of the article. Also, trying to establish the notability of an article by Google hits is misleading. Google searches are a good way to look for sources, but they do not constitute a base for notability. In the same form, saying that the bugs are "well know" as a mean to establish verifiability lands in the scope of weasel wording.
I have not seen a single allegation about NPOV violations. And if there are, they are misleaded. An article should be NPOV in nature. Creating an article to explain a POV is like spliting the splines. Said this, this discussion has little or nothing to do with NPOV violations.The neutral point of view of an article, has nothing to do with its notability.
My recomendations to you MKULTRA33 is to be bold. Yes, as you were, but try keeping consensus into account when doing so. Include the changes you think are apropiate for an article. Keep the page in your watchlist. If your edits met consensus, you can freely revert the disrupting edits, just as your edits were reverted.
Well I hope no one got bored. Thanks fore reading. --Legion fi (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this user has vandalized my user page [6], my talk page [7], and has done other inappropriate things such as strike out a user's comment on this afd [8]. Artichoker (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the account of this user has been made today (June 1). - Face 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So what? I made mine yesterday. Are new wiki-users second class citizens? MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It means that you... ARE SOCKPUPPETING!! (mwhahahaha!) - Face 12:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, if only I had the time. Still, in seriousness, it is somewhat disappointing to have that accusation levelled at me, even under the guise of a joke.MKULTRA333 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I was acting weird ;-). But seriously: I don't know if there's policy about this, but votes by newly registered or anonymous users have always been given less weight when they have no original argumentation, or if the argumentation is flawed, which is the case here. Cheers, Face 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the current article is as good as it can be isn't the issue. Given a chance it can be improved. Plus, some exposition on how the Glitch City bug is initiated and what happens once it is activated is a valid part of the topic.MKULTRA333 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have five days until this AfD ends to improve the article. I'll be glad to change my opinion if I have misjudged the article's potential. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has sufficient information to warrant Wikipedia inclusion. It doesn't need to be perfect, it only need accurately cover a notable phenomenon. I have never claimed to be either an expert on Pokemon or pokemon glitches, only that the article, as it stands, has enough objective merit to exist.MKULTRA333 (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is completely unsourced except for its fansite external-links and an obscure amazon book (WP:V/WP:RS/WP:OR). It doesn't include any information why the programmers included the Glitch City in the first place. There is no reception/influence section. Without reliable secondary sources, notability is not established, and I doubt it could be established (prove this wrong). Instead, the article is full of how to access these locations in the game (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Under these conditions, the article doesn't warrant any kind of inclusion on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 11:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't include any information why the programmers included the Glitch City in the first place."
Actually it does, in the very first sentence of the article, "Glitch City is a term used by Pokémon gamers to refer to a hidden fictional city caused by a bug that occurs in the Pokémon video game Red, Blue and Yellow versions."
A gamer is not a Gamefreak programmer. Try again. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for only being mentioned on "fansites" as you call them, this is incorrect, it is covered on a wide variety of gaming sites, and YouTube videos, and at least the Amazon book you mention. Obscurity is no excuse to delete, a great many of the chemicals, mathematical proceedures, and animal species mentioned in Wikipedia are obscure, and noted by far less people than Glitch City. What you appear to be arguing for is a kind of snobbery whereby popular culture studies are denigrated despite their large audiences, simply because they don't often produce the kind of citing that a chemical or mathematical subject might. On the contrary, media, movie and other popular culture topics are just as valid wikipedia subjects as academic topics. If you don't like that, I believe there is another online encyclopedia, [9], that would be more to your tastes.
Also, found another book that mentions Glitch City [10].MKULTRA333 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That book is already listed, but the article doesn't use it as a reference at all. Anyway, I have said enough and stand by everything I said. Goodbye. – sgeureka t•c 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the book has already been mentioned, then it is mentioned in at least two books, not one as you claimed above. And whether or not that particular book is used as a reference doesn't change the fact that the books are evidence of notability.MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the sources. From the eight external links mentioned in the article, 3 are broken links, 3 are self-published sites (personal sites),1 is a reference to a book in japanese, and the other one is a the only reference of a book that holds. But, can any of the editors of the article honestly tell me that they own the book? Or have access to its content? And if they do, could they please reference the article content in-line? Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is missing some pictures, a result of it having been neglected when it was being redirected elsewhere. That the article needs a little repair is not a reason to delete.MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a lot more than that (i.e. some references) and it still has not established notability. Artichoker (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read my whole comment before replying, no images was just an example of my reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your going to delete it, at least merge it into the R/B article. Also, remake the glitches section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change of vote) With a significant rewrite, it can be improved. This is a verifiable and quite notable glitch. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree It's a glitch, not plot, the oonly way to get to it is by glitch, hence it's name Glitchcity. Fivexthethird (talk)
I consider it as plot since the content of the article has very little impact outside the universe of the pokemon games. The red link Blue hell in the introductio is the specific bug that is beeing talked about, and that should perhaps be an article. One that I suppose could include a brief description of glitch city as a specific example. Taemyr (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think probably a recreated glitches page with Missingno and others would be a more sensible solution.
At the very least these glitches are such a notable part of the pokemon games that, failing their own articles, the glitches section of Red/Blue should be re-implemented (and the Glitch City section expanded by a line or two). That could be easily done, as the history page for Red/Blue already contains the glitch section. But that would require agreement from Artichoker and some honour not to just delete the section once the storm has passed.MKULTRA333 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be kept if he doesn't agree, and if he does, merge it, with restoration of the glitches section! Who's with me? Fivexthethird (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to break consensus and "delete the section once the storm has passed." I don't know where you got that idea. If at the end of this AfD, Glitch City is merged into Pokemon Red and Blue, it will stay. This article's future has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, its future will be determined by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, namely this AfD. Artichoker (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Artichoker, just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be edited out down the track like in the past merges of Glitch City, Missingno, etc. But at this stage I think it deserves its own article. Only if the deletion carries should it be reinstated as a subsection of the pokemon red/blue page, or possibly part of resurrected Pokemon Bug page (along with Missingno and others).MKULTRA333 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, however, if the decision is to delete and not merge, you will just have to accept that. Artichoker (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Could be improved, sure, but seems useful. I've no idea why anyone thinks it should be deleted. It's a significant memorabilia of a period pop-culture phenomenon. --  Chzz  ►  01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since whether this article is deleted or not will be decided in a few days, I don't see much point in trying to prejudice things by hanging the equivalent of "Condemned Building" signs on it. If it survives, then sure, go crazy with templates.MKULTRA333 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... so what do I find, but Artichoker automatically reverting my edits of the templates, along with a "polite" auto-response to my use page saying I need to give valid reasons. Never mind that I gave reasons in the edit description, in the Glitch City discussion page, and here.MKULTRA333 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies at [11] and [12]. Also, this is not the correct place to post this. Simply on Talk:Glitch City will do fine. Artichoker (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The last version of the Red/Blue page to mention the glitches is here [13]. I think that section, while adequate on most counts, fails to say enough about Glitch City, so I've made a new version of the Glitches section over on my sandbox. See my suggested merge section here [14]

To this point my discussions with another editor on this subject have been less than productive. All I get are threats of warnings and accusations of vandalism, plus reverts, at every turn. I really would like to put that in the past. We obviously disagree, but I want the articles to be interesting and valuable just as much as anyone else. Notability for an article subsection is not the issue that it is for the article itself. As the page on notability itself explains, "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements." I also think the "in-universe" and "fiction" tags are being applied too liberally. Given that this is the discussion of effects found in a computer game, short descriptions of how the player gets there and what they see are unavoidable.

So if possible, and if a Merge is decided as the best option, avoiding a war of attrition over the content of the merge would be great.MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at diff. Artichokertalk 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm aware. But did you read what I said? My comment was the number of Ghits "at least confirm there is a prevailing term for this glitch." I agree this article cannot stand on its own - which is why I suggested merging pertinent information into another notable article. There are enough verifiable sources to indicate this glitch exists, and that there is a prevailing term for it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (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.
More