Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portia
Portia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 keep.
Delete. If we're getting pokemon deleted as fancruft, certainly something like this should certainly be deleted as well. birdboy2000
- Yeah, Shakespeare and Pokemon are basically interchangable. Keep, obviously. And last I heard Pokemon was not getting deleted, in any form. -R. fiend 23:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Putting this on VfD is just insane.--Calton 23:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but the point is that keeping this and deleting 'notable' -mons is based on a subjective value judgement, one which I don't think an encylopedia should be making for its readers. Kappa 00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I wouldn't advise it as an ultimate notability test, but having a ball of rock about the size of Great Britain named after you probably serves even in the absense of anything else. I wouldn't argue that any Shakespearean character is notable - but there's not many who are more notable than her and still fictional. Note, incidentally, that The Merchant of Venice only has seperate pages for two characters; there is already restraint in the creation of these. (Her and Shylock, which at a guess are the most notable ones - it'd be hard to argue Shylock wasn't encyclopedic). Oh - incidentally, even were a page on Portia the heroine invalid, this page would still have to exist - if nothing else, as a redirect for the moon (inherently encylopedic) and the genus of spiders (which are probably also so). Voting for deletion, in this case, would just be silly. Shimgray 01:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and I couldn't resist...
- PORTIA: Of a strange nature is the suit you follow; (IV.1) Shimgray 01:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Pokemon may become regarded as Shakespeare, but it'll take a while. Urhixidur 02:24, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Keep. Subjectivity is inherent in deciding what makes the cut and what doesn't, both in standard encyclopedias and on Wikipedia. We try to set up as many objective criteria as possible, but it is still a subjective process. Portia is significant not only for her Shakespeare role, but also especially for the astronomical and taxonomic significance. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 04:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, keep. Is anyone tracking the increasing number of abusive listings lately? There really needs to be a system in place to delist these bogus VfDs. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I have to say that I think the deletability of most VfD listing has increased in recent months. Oh, and keep this by the way; we should only be so lucky as to have individual Pokemon deleted, and Shakespeare is in quite a different league. - RedWordSmith 21:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I understand what you're getting at, but I think you could at least have chosen something borderline to make your point. This is about as subtle as a brick. Keep. Shane King 05:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: This is silly, of course, but I can provide a good guide for the difference between fancruft and non. Does the subject ever appear outside of its fictive context and therefore require an encyclopedia to explain it? In the case of Portia, you bet. She's referred to all over the place. In the case of Porkemon or Pigjuzumon or whatever, no. If you're watching a contemporary movie, you might well hear some character say, "I have the choices of Portia," or you might encounter her name in "A Fish Called Wanda" and need to know what it means. Geogre 05:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry but yes. See here. Pokemon fans rejoice! According to Geogre, Pikachu has evolved beyond fancruft. The Steve 08:56, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Pikachu has. I'd have said that anyway. Now, about every other card, with lovingly obsessive comments, the "cities" with gyms, the power crystals, magic wands, and all the rest.... Pac-Man is beyond fancruft, but the names of the little guys who chase him, Inky, Blinky and something else, aren't. Geogre 19:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The point being made is perfectly valid, although Shakespeare characters are of course more notable than Pokemon characters. They are alike in that they are all culturally notable—in the sense that millions are familiar with them and they are integral to things that are familiar to millions more—but different in that Shakespeare has gained cultural respectability while Pokemon is considered a silly child's game. I consider only notability in my votes, not respectability. And I don't object to the listing, either. Sometimes it's good to make a point. Everyking 06:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven, Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. Portia's famous speech from the Mechant of Venice. I have added that plus the role being one of Shakespeares most notable romantic heroines. In addition, I have added some of the notable actresses that have played the part, the moon of Uranus, the reference from Rumpole of the Bailey, and the New England School of Law being known as the Portia Law School from 1908 to 1969. I even added in something from the mirror universe of Star Trek. I wasn't aware of the Fish called Wanda reference other than Archie Leach's daughter being called Portia so I can add that as well. In addition, the article also mentioned the role of Portia as Brutus's wife in Julius Caesar and I have added some od the actresses that have played that role. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Archie Leach's daughter is named Portia, and that's all you get, directly. Otto says, to Wanda, that he thinks it's cool that they named their daughter after a car. The joke is, of course, that they didn't, and we, in the audience, need to know whom they did name her for. I brought it up to suggest why Portia needs a stand-alone article as opposed to a spot in a Shakespeare's heroines article (and therefore why DigimonZ With Flame Gun needs to be merged into an article on the fiction as opposed to broken out as a solo article). Geogre 14:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Ridiculous listing IMO, does its cause no good at all and makes Wikipedia look silly. But the easiest thing is just to let the process take its course. Andrewa 11:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Yet another example of Wikipedia being disrupted to make a point. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly notable. Fire Star 17:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, lessee...totally neologistic characters created by the committee of a Japanese electronics conglomerate versus a character from the most important author in the history of English literature. Do I really have to vote keep article and run the individual responsible for listing this through RfC? - Lucky 6.9 01:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What would that serve? Portia is just another fictional character, no matter how great her author. Take the point, smile and move on. BTW, the Pokemons are probably more widely known these days. Dr Zen 03:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, she's not "just another fictional character." She's one of the lead characters in the story. That's why she's notable enoough for an article, and her servants Balthazar and Stephano aren't, despite being created by the same author. And if someone did create the Balthazar and Stephano articles, they'd soon be deleted as fancruft. Keep. P Ingerson 12:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What would that serve? Portia is just another fictional character, no matter how great her author. Take the point, smile and move on. BTW, the Pokemons are probably more widely known these days. Dr Zen 03:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Good point. I just think there are better ways to get a point across. Still, quite a lively discussion, eh? Smiling... - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. —tregoweth 02:25, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Kappa thinks we should not make value judgements. (Like, say "Kappa's opinion is moronic") We have notability requirements : the plays of Shakespeare are one of the key cultural reference points in the Anglophone world (and beyond). Pokemon is a recent children's fad animation. Shakespeare will be being performed in 200 years, Pokemon won't. That's not a value judgement, its bloody obvious to anyone who isn't a complete imbecile. -- GWO
- So which parts of "recent children's fad animation" are reasons for deletion? It seems to me that children deserve to be served by encyclopedias as much or more than adults do. Animations are unworthy? Stage plays were regarded as inferior entertainment in their time. "Recent... fad" as a reason for deletion implies that either: you can confidently predict the future, which seems hubristic, or that you want to delete material now, and then possibly recreate that material if your prediction turns out to be wrong, which seems inefficient at best. Kappa 15:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So which parts of "recent children's fad animation" are reasons for deletion? Words one and three will do the trick. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think just being notable for any length of time is adequate. Where are you going to draw the line? Still notable after five, ten, 20, 50, 500 years? Oh, we're going to have to delete your article now, but if it can stay notable for a little while longer, then we'll let you write it over again. I say, if it's notable today, or it was notable yesterday, that's good enough. Everyking 02:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So which parts of "recent children's fad animation" are reasons for deletion? Words one and three will do the trick. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So which parts of "recent children's fad animation" are reasons for deletion? It seems to me that children deserve to be served by encyclopedias as much or more than adults do. Animations are unworthy? Stage plays were regarded as inferior entertainment in their time. "Recent... fad" as a reason for deletion implies that either: you can confidently predict the future, which seems hubristic, or that you want to delete material now, and then possibly recreate that material if your prediction turns out to be wrong, which seems inefficient at best. Kappa 15:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Character is well-known outside the context of the play. (Her conundrum of the three chests is also part of common folklore and deserved to be part of this article too). Gdr 01:13, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
- Keep Portia, delete the Pokémons.Martg76 04:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep -- As someone who just recently deleted a sizable section on the Cat page devoted to discussing which Pokemon characters were somewhat similar to cats, it's pretty clear that the Pokemania has been spreading like a disease through this encyclopedia and needs to be reigned in. Shakespeare doesn't need to be reigned in. This character has survived the test of time, Pokeman likely will be nothing but a bad dream in another decade. DreamGuy 21:58, Dec 17, 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.