Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''Merge and redirect''' the monster list to [[Beet the Vandel Buster]] where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and where there's a nice subheading laid out for it already. --[[User:Lockley|Lockley]] ([[User talk:Lockley|talk]]) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Merge and redirect''' the monster list to [[Beet the Vandel Buster]] where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and where there's a nice subheading laid out for it already. --[[User:Lockley|Lockley]] ([[User talk:Lockley|talk]]) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge''' redirecting each of the monsters, as it appears that this is not a major series, and there's room for them in the main article-- although one couldn't tell any of that from the nom. Plot it isn't, original research it isn't, characters like these in a fiction though individually too trivial for an article are not trivial collectively, and listcruft is IDONTLIKEIT. There's presumably a reason why someone doesn't like it, and it s a little more helpful if one explains just why.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''' redirecting each of the monsters, as it appears that this is not a major series, and there's room for them in the main article-- although one couldn't tell any of that from the nom. Plot it isn't, original research it isn't, characters like these in a fiction though individually too trivial for an article are not trivial collectively, and listcruft is IDONTLIKEIT. There's presumably a reason why someone doesn't like it, and it s a little more helpful if one explains just why.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.2|63.3.1.2]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.2|talk]]) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:50, 27 September 2008
Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster
- Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is a trivial list built out of unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is listcraft and original research -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as there appears to be no information in this list worthy of merging. Though I don't technically think that the list qualifies as "plot summary", and certainly not as original research. It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —erachima talk 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree to all above. I can see no necessarity for this article. abf /talk to me/ 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Am appropriating the phrase It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect the monster list to Beet the Vandel Buster where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and where there's a nice subheading laid out for it already. --Lockley (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge redirecting each of the monsters, as it appears that this is not a major series, and there's room for them in the main article-- although one couldn't tell any of that from the nom. Plot it isn't, original research it isn't, characters like these in a fiction though individually too trivial for an article are not trivial collectively, and listcruft is IDONTLIKEIT. There's presumably a reason why someone doesn't like it, and it s a little more helpful if one explains just why.DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)