Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machinedramon

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. Delete 10 / Keep 3 / Merge 3. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Machinedramon

This is obscure details of an anime series. Wikipedia is not a fan site. The same goes for all the articles contributed by user 68.200.81.62. --70.104.81.173 04:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree I think as long as they are not too long and complicated I think they should be okay. I am also the one contributating information and the occasional summaries to help User 68.200.81.62. I admit that that user needs to work on spelling and sentance grammer but other then that I like it. Heck I am also the one who created the knowledgeable summary for the Legendary Warriors and am also the one who helped make sure that Japanese Digimon Information was in the summaries. So in other words I have also been a major player in this as well. So my decsion is that you are taking this a little to far. Keep 24.20.153.45
What links here (for Machinedramon): Digimon, Agumon, WarGreymon, MetalGreymon, Piedmon, Digimon: Digital Monsters (anime). 5050 web and 667 Usenet hits. Unless a merging swath is cut through Digimon characters, of which this seems to be an entirely notable one, keep. Samaritan 04:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above but no oppostion to merging (in swathes, not individual articles). Kappa 06:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as it hold information on the show & the offical profile gaven about it by Bandai.
Delete. The problem I have with all of these is that people like me who aren't interested in Digimon have no way to know which of the characters are notable without doing mind-numbing research on the subject, which none of us want to do. But the people who are interested in Digimon think that every last Digimon character is absolutely above the threshold of notability for inclusion in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It makes no sense to me that we have a notability test for the biographies of actual people, and we have no such test for Digimon (etc) characters. This undermines the Wikipedia in a major way. How many times have you read something like: "(fill in the blank) is definitely more notable than Machinedramon, and we do have an article on Machinedramon". Digimon/Pokemon characters (along with Star Trek episodes) are almost the paradigm example of things which ALMOST ANYTHING is more notable than. For this reason, my opinion is that no individual Digimon character is notable enough for a general encyclopedia and every single last one of these articles, including this one, should be deleted, transwikied to Wikimon (or something) or else merged into one or a few summary articles about Digimon. --BM 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 22:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree 100% with User:BM: we need some standards for notability of cartoon characters. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most of these Digimon articles resemble utter gibberish ("Drambuiemon is a mutant digimon who is derived from the Great Volovoron. His powers were granted by Drabblemon. He fights little pink newts. Attacks: Lice, Peanuts. He lifts in baby form.") and it's hard to tell which ones are notable. Indeed, it would be hard to know if there weren't someone generating hoax Digimon articles. (Pop quiz: Without checking, are you able to tell whether the example that I gave is a hoax?) As it is, these articles are fiction masquerading as fact. I've added {{cleanup-context}} to several as I have seen them added, in the hope that at least it would nudge the Digimon-Dumpers into checking their fiction, but that hasn't happened. And a look at how many dangling hyperlinks there still are in List of Digimon gives me a feeling of dread. Perhaps a Merge the lot, or failing that Delete, will get the message across. Uncle G 02:26, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G's argument about the verifiability of the article. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Grue 10:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ugen 64 16:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (unsigned vote by an anon user, 68.200.81.62, therefore invalid)
Delete. Or let them create a new Wiki just for Digimon as BM has suggested above. -- RHaworth 22:56, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Keep. Not delete. At least merge it into one article if you're going to do that. ✏ OvenFresh ² 02:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Digimon. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I don't like it, but Digimon are notable. Hordes of kids are obsessed about them. However, a seperate wiki or notability standards would really help. And I'd like to ask Pokemon fans to assist the Digimon people in formatting the pages into a more appealing look. They seem to have the taxobox thing down. Mgm|^(talk) 13:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- That may be true, but nobody is proposing that Digimon be deleted. It seems a logical fallacy to conclude from the fact that Digimon is notable and merits an article that every single aspect of Digimon, including all the separate characters, is notable and merits its own article. Just because the Digimon company keeps churning out characters so that they can sell comic books, TV episodes, trading cards, and action figures, doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs an article on each one of them. --BM 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.