Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ¡Mucha Lucha! characters


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of ¡Mucha Lucha! characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic reads like a child diary. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. How is this list encyclopedic? It's completely in universe. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It desperately needs work but the subject matter is valid, as there is already an article for the series.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't. It's mostly descriptions of characters, complete with their voice actors. It needs cleanup of the language and some citing of episodes per WP:WAF. I'd do it myself, but I don't watch the show. We just had a large discussion of a similar article at Articles for deletion/List of characters in Atomic Betty which resulted in the article being kept as a valid list related to an encyclopedic article.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is and it is completely embarrassing. "He is a strange being, consisting of a giant brain with a face floating in a glass dome with mechanical legs and arms who yearns to control the universe, and eliminate inefficient and unsanitary organic life forms in the process. The self-proclaimed greatest genius in the galaxy," People are happy to see content like that exist and it really makes me at times wonder why I contribute to a site run by kiddies. I try to ignore it mostly and focus on enyclopedic topics but a lot of these fan cruft lists really take the mickey out of this website. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article badly needs to be cleaned up and made encyclopedic but I don't think that lists of characters from a show are by necessity unencyclopedic or crufty. If this were like the other AFD you nominated (a list page of a subset of 'evil' power rangers, specifically), I think it would be appropriate, but I think all this article needs is a rewrite. -Kuzaar-T-C- 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Character lists are perfectly valid spin-out articles. An article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What part about WP:Citing sources and WP:NOR don't you know about? The fact is that there are a large number of manga and comic book fans on here who will gladly accept these fan cruft "articles" into their "encyclopedia". In all probability these lovers of fictional cartoons and comics will turn out here to protect their beloved fancruft.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the fact that Wikipedia has articles on topics like this is one of its strengths, not weaknesses. If these articles bother you so much, work on one more in keeping with what you'd find in your idea of an encyclopedia. We can take care of this one. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who feels this way. File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png pretty much sums it up exactly. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Standard way of organizing non-notable characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a satirical graphic not meant to be taken seriously and hasn't been updated for awhile (the Pokemon section has been exhaustively trimmed in the last year, for instance, and the Bush vandalism is about as fresh as Monica Lewinsky jokes at this point).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about 50/50, people who'd agree and disagree with you, I'd guess. Go read the talk pages of FICT, NOT#PLOT, and NOTE to see the discussions that have been going on for years now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I find no issues with this list at all. If you have an issue with the writing of the article, be bold, jump in and fix it. However, the flags must be removed per WP:MOSFLAGS at the very least.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No issues??? Unreferenced, unverified, poorly written, completely in universe, questionable notability of the minor characters, MOS problems. The list goes on. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and encourage editors be proactive in addressing any perceived flaws. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a list of characters from a popular TV series. Iowateen (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merged articles like this are the way to go. it's the only compromise that is at all likely to be generally acceptable. "Fan junk" = IDONTLIKEIT. Juast improve the article. DGG (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um no actually it refers to unreferenced, poorly written material which is not verified with little relevance to the real world and is only understood by fans who know or care about the characters,  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not for cleanup. If you have a problem with the article, use the talk page, and tag it with citations.  The subject is valid, therefore the article should be kept.   D r e a m Focus  19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Nomination is simply a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.