Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Digimon (2nd nomination)

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. Clear consensus to delete, despite the behavior of (now banned) nominator. No prejudice to recreation with proper sourcing, and I am willing to userfiy if someone is committed to working on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the creatures on this list are notable. Also, most of the info is better suited to a specialized Digimon Wiki. The summary at the top can be easily covered by the main Digimon article as well. Fangusu (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is now indef. blcked All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dishwater weak Keep: I dunno; individual items in a list don't have to meet the same notability standards as independent articles. A simple list -- one that, blessedly, isn't choked with paragraphs of in-game info and speculation on each and every entry -- isn't onerous. I would like more sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. At the risk of going all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, List of Pokémon is fairly non-controversial at this point. Most vaguely similar franchises also have character lists, of which this one is, sadly, far from in the worst shape. I think it can and should be better-referenced, but on the merits, I don't see any reason to distinguish it from all the other character lists the project permits. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to specifically say keep, but "None of them are notable" does seem like a poor argument. WP:CSC specifically allows "lists [that] are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". --BDD (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a place for character lists which is well established. However generally they tend to have actual discussion of the characters, even if it does tend to be plot summary. As for a pure list? No, I don't see an encyclopaedic need for this list that is purely a list of names and doesn't attempt to provide any information, real world or in-universe. The Pokemon list serves a greater purpose as it is a way of filtering people to the separate articles and can exist on merit (i.e. it does something). I'm not against the list being recreated with an actual purpose but a list of hundreds of unlinked names and no discussion is a much harder article to justify, regardless of franchise notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firstly a "raw" list is useful, it enables one to answer questions such as "Is this a digimon or a pokemon?". Secondly there is no reason that it needs to remain "raw", from the number of sub-lists there is scope for adding detail if appropriate. That this has not happened yet is not a good case for deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

That isn't a question Wikipedia should be expected to answer. Not to mention that plenty of other places exist to do that, i.e. Wikia, or a old fashioned google search. I also disagree that it being raw means it's not a good case for deletion. While not a conclusive reason, what tends to happen is that when people suggest a page can be improved by adding content, no one actually adds the content. Prove the page can be improved, then say it's worth keeping when something is shown for it. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking here on how it would be improved other than being a name dump that anyone could add to (WP:OR). This is different than a character list as at least a character list shows how x character is essential to the plot, something that cant be described on the article's main page alone. My suggestion is either A. Sum up the main characters on the main article's talk page in prose, or B. Split off a list of the characters that are essential to the series. We don't need to include the guy in the back-round that gets killed by a rock in one episode. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How is this list useful? 1. It is un-sourced, I know it is written someplace that not all items on a list need to be sourced but that runs against WP:OR. 2. It is WP:FANCRUFT, this is the kind of thing I would expect to find on wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is simply the skeleton of what could have been a well put together list when compared to something like the List of Pokémon (which has a table and 150+ sources to its merit). Editors have simply been dumping names in this list as they come up with zero sourcing or proof of notability. Since it has remained largely in this state for years it should be deleted. If someone wants to recreate it in the future with a proper structure and sourcing I'm fine with that. —Kirt^Message 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that a substantial amount of structured and sourced list material has recently been deleted. Otherwise it could be imported into this list, if that is seen as a good thing. I have introduced one link to the surviving material, and would be prepared to do the rest, even though I have no interest in Digimon. I don't like to see campaigns from a single (in this case, indef blocked) editor to wipe out reference material that others have spent so much time developing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    

That sounds too much like a personal opinion to me. The editor who went about starting the recent Digimon AfD's might have gone about the wrong way, but based on the way those discussions went, the lists were deleted fairly. Much in the same way as this one. If its not well developed enough to demonstrate basic notability then it should be axed. Enough Wikia fan pages already have boatloads of this type of data in the same format. These Digimon pages have spent years with no improvement so if we're going to keep this page then a substantial edit should be made. Other wise we'll be right back here. —Kirt^Message 01:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An indefinitely blocked nominator should not invalidate this AfD. —Kirt^Message 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't as these discussions are based on arguments for or against deletion, not of the conduct of the nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per policy, WP:NOTPLOT, our articles must be more than mere summaries of the contents of fiction. This here is nothing more than a list of monster names and fails that policy so hard.  Sandstein  17:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is fancruft, pure and simple. An indiscriminate list of all digimon that have appeared in any media is no more appropriate than a list of all extras who have appeared on The Mentalist. The more worthwhile characters are already summarized on lists such as List of Digimon Adventure characters, so no merge is necessary here. ~ Rob^Talk 21:51, 31 August 2015 (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.