Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monster in My Pocket characters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Monster in My Pocket characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Catalog listing of hundreds of figures in a toy range. It's a useless list as well, because none of the names link to articles about the toys. Indiscriminate information that belongs on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Crazysuit 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per Crazysuit. Purely pointless... fairly entertaining list to look at, though. - Kneel17 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - the "See also" section is hilarious - it includes a link to The Lesser Key of Solomon. The main Monster in My Pocket article is quite large, so I think merging is completely out of the question, whether someone can format it or not. I sympathize with anyone interested in this subject matter who says "but it's useful!"; but I think this is a little too much detail for Wikipedia to have on this topic. Thus listcruft, thus delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: I was more or less forced to excise this from the Monster in My Pocket article, but without this, it ignores the rich lore that Monster ion My Pocket draws from. It's not a collection simply of famous monsters, but little-known monsters as well. To eliminate this makes no sense, especially when every Kinnikuman character is listed. There is nothing "hilarious" about a link to The Lesser Key of Solomon considering it is one of the sources from which Monster in My Pocket characters were drawn. Except for Warlock and Vampire, there really is not enough about the monsters that are unique to their MIMP presentations to make them more than supplementary information to the monster's main page. Had more materials, such as the announced live-action feature film, been made, that would be a valid argument. To delete this article is simply not thoughtful, as the whole point of the range is that they were "real" monsters, in the sense of all being pre-existing ideas in international culture before they were toys. Yes, it got sidetracked, but even the Super Creepies are based on real arthropods. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NOT a toy catalog. Just because something is 'real' doesn't make it notable, encyclopedic, or even interesting outside of its fanbase. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article makes a mockery of the respectable field of pocket monsters. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; there is already an external link to the excellent Toyarchive.com in the main Monster in My Pocket article, which has a huge list of merchandise, including images. If anyone wants to see a list of every toy in the range, they can click on that link. Masaruemoto 05:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this should in a template or a category instead of a listcruft article.--JForget 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point is to link to the entires on the monsters in wikipedia, as nearly all of them have an article. You people all seem to be missing the point. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss these creatures in the specific context of MIMP then great, write an article on them. Otto4711 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not simply a collection of internal links until it was reworked by someone else. It was originally "Characters of Monster in My Pocket" and I was forced to concede the change under the three-revert rule. With User:Spylab's changes reversed, it would be a work in progress and not simply a collection of internal links. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:23, 25 July 2007 (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.