Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy Bestiary

 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 - kept - SimonP 05:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Bestiary
Final Fantasy? Plenty ok. A separate article for its bestiary? Dubious. Raw stats? No. Might be a copyvio of some game guide or other besides. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 14:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: 83.116.212.140 (page author) removed the VfD notice from his page. Replaced now.
 * Keep FF main article is already 37k, re-merging the bestiary wouldn't be a good idea. With at least 15 or more unique games already, the series has plenty enough unique creatures to warrant an article.  Tonberry, for example, has 23,000 Google hits just on its own.  Final Fantasy has 5,640,000 hits, plus many more if we count abbreviations like FFX, FFVII, etc... so the subject is far too extensive and notable to cram into just one 32K article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those aren't raw stats; they're lists of which creatures appear in which games. Also, this list can't possibly be anywhere near complete; I remember getting a poster with my copy of FF for the NES which listed more monsters for that game alone than what already appear on this list. A well-done list of this sort would probably be interesting to at least a few people, but the problem is creating a complete and non-ugly list. Leaning towards Delete, but no vote for now. Android79 15:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * They aren't stats, but the games in the series in which said creature appears. That said, like many fantasy RPGs, FF contains a wide selection of generic mythological monsters, and as such this list is rather pointless. Weak delete unless changed to an article rather than a list. Radiant! 15:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, obviously. Millions of people are interested in Chocobos for example and would presumably like to know which games they are in. Kappa 18:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information to FF fans. I do worry that the list will become unwieldy and large, but I suppose we can always break it up into smaller articles if need be. DaveTheRed 19:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason to delete. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. Megan1967 05:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic. Martg76 12:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete . Yes, a list of which animals appear in which FF games is a nice idea, but the list has to be more complete and better presented.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So we should delete every article that isn't complete and prettily formatted? Kappa 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No we shouldn't. That's not a general rule. But in the case of this specific article, I think the article should be formatted better. Anyway, I don't think there's anything in the article that would justify its deletion. I'm changing my vote to weak keep.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of creatures from Final Fantasy or something, remove the numbers or stats or whatever as they're unexplained and insignificant, and get rid of the 1st person intro. -R. fiend 16:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As explained above, those aren't "raw stats", they are games. Kappa 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever they are, they aren't explained. If it is truly important to mention what games they were in then at least explain the information. I'm guessing, however, that it is not truly important. -R. fiend 16:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, main article is too big to merge - David Gerard 23:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and then look to restructure information on common Final Fantasy monsters on a suitable page, such as List of Final Fantasy monsters. Would be a lot more suitable than is. Hedley 03:44, 19 Mar 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.