Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1)


 * 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 Transwiki. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1), List of Rookie Digimon (Part 2)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

dozens and dozens of minor figures form the Digimon franchise, all drawn directly from primary sources, none of which has any assertion of notability beyond mere existence. This is a level of detail well beyond what's needed for a non-player (i.e. reader of an encyclopaedia) to understand the Digimon franchise, it's into game guide territory. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For my actual vote, keep, but reduce to a namelist only. That namelist could then act as an alphabetical index (use sortable tables and you have other options as well), and refer people to other articles for information on the creatures that are important enough that we need to cover them in detail. Or, possibly, to lists divided by season, if the individual Digimon aren't deemed notable enough for their own pages. --tjstrf talk 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First, on a somewhat procedural note, this is in no way a game guide, and I wish people wouldn't abuse that term. A game guide is a collection of tips or hints, tells you how to do something, and falls under "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual", which has nothing at all to do with why this page is being nominated.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   —tjstrf talk 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this would happen eventually, even though we've been working so hard to clean it up. Oh well. Instead of all that - can we just transwiki it to the digimon wikia? All the notable creatures already have articles, and tjstrf's suggestion is basically just a modification of List of Digimon. But please, please, don't just delete this without salvaging the info.KrytenKoro 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly sound idea. In fact, that's probably where it should have been all along.  If anyone wants to boldly do that, I for one will have no problem with it. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember when these guys all had their own pages, and that probably pre-dates Wikia. I put a fair amount of work into some of them actually. Shiroi Hane 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki - exactly the sort of thing that should be getting moved under the revised guidelines. We all keep forgetting that's an option. Doceirias 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - a suitable option. The articles fail WP:FICT, and would be deleted otherwise. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - the best place for this article is on the digimon wiki. I just don't think it is deserving of a place here.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Such level of detail is not needed in a general encyclopedia.GreenSprite 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - the best solution. Transwiki all these Digilists, and put an external link at the main article page. Then, do that for all the OTHER cardgame/cartoon cross marketing franchises. ThuranX 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki for sure. TMI for here. --  But | seriously | folks   07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I remember when these guys all had their own pages. I put a lot of work into some of them. Shiroi Hane 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They can blossom again at the Digimon wiki! -- But | seriously | folks   16:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote: KEEP, KEEP, KEEP!!! Why not? It clears most things up on the Digimon subject. Rainbow sprinkle 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.8.168 (talk)
 * Oh crap, how did I not notice this discussion before? These lists are basically the result of WP:DIGI's mass article reorganization (basically, we wanted to stop having individual articles for Digimon). In the back of my mind, though, I knew that even the lists themselves would likely be too much detail, even trimmed and merged as they are now. At the time I was just happy we didn't have individual articles anymore. But, even though this might upset some of the Digimon editors, it seems now is the time to transwiki. This would basically mean redirecting the articles to keep their history until they can be exported, and even then it will be some more work, since the content form the lists come from individual articles (which need their histories for GFDL reasons) found in Category:Redirects from Digimon. It should also be noted that Digimon that are anime characters have their own articles, and are the only ones that might be found notable, so these lists won't effect that area (a discussion for another page, no doubt) -- Ned Scott 07:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, provides necesssary detailss . --Eldarone 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I've been trying to recommend trimming this properly, but my efforts were generally reverted, and I just gave up. The condition for keeping the individual articles was that we make a list of them. Circeus 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: We're transwiking to [digimon.wikia.org], right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Likely. There's also Wikimon, which is a bit more developed, but we don't have a clear statement if they're GFDL or not (I think I asked once, but I'll have to look into it). -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did too. Never got an answer. They could use the help as they lost all data somewhere over the summer. Circeus 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be a good idea to extend this AfD or move to an RfC type set up for the details of this operation. Given that it will likely effect the other lists as well, it might be a good idea to get some more comments, as well as pre-planning for a transwiki if that is what ends up happening. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 September 2007 (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.