Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Virtual Dungeon monsters


 * 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, although this should not be seen as setting any kind of precedent, in spite of some comments made in the AfD. --Core desat  04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic. The monster entries are only comprised of plot summaries (WP:NOT) and are only sourced from the TV show itself. It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). There is very little possibility to get any kind of secondary sourcing or out-of-universe context because VR Troopers is relatively obscure; it's highly unlikely that we will find interviews from the producers about the monsters. I recommend deletion as an article unmaintable and unencyclopedic. Hbdragon88 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a collection of information directly related to a reasonably notable television show, collating the various monsters that appeared in it. In a sense, it's almost like a list of episodes, which might be the preferred format.  I see no reason to delete it.   FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete Multiple, reliable sources need to be presented for any article. This one seems to rely on only a single, primary source: the show itself.  Without any context or discussion of meaning this is meaningless. 69.210.75.23 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that not discussing it is more important than trying to present some meaning for it. Presenting information is far more appropriate for an Encyclopedia than analysis of any kind.  And the context is quite clear, so I don't even know why you're objecting to it.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 69.210.75.23 is referring to WP:NOT, whcih stipulates "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance..." hbdragon88 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, what's missing with the context of "this appeared in episode X of Show Y"? If you insist on more than that, then I'd say you are raising the bar to a fairly higher standard than is common on Wikipedia.  Sure, individual articles on these monsters might not be a good idea without more content, but a collected article?  Fine with me.  At the worst, repurpose the article to cover the episodes more explicitly.  In fact, given that this article exists, I'd say there is a good indication that this isn't just some random standalone article, but part of a relatively decent amount of effort.  Thus I'm satisfied that if there is further expansion needed, it will come.    FrozenPurpleCube 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was planning to possibly AFD that in the future too. I asked  about it in December, but he just stated monsters generally got a list anyway.  For the episodes, such episode pages already exist for Power Rangers, making the monster ones even less useful. hbdragon88 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, both in this case, and that one. I think the material is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I am also troubled by using this as a test case without mentioning your further plans.  I would prefer you had either stated so in the first place, or picked a less obscure show to start with.  It would have been much more upfront.  Oh, and I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category.  I consider most of them to be downright abysmal.  OTOH, the quality of the monster pages while not perfect, is still a good start.  If I had to choose one or the other to keep, I'd pick these pages over the others. FrozenPurpleCube 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category - well, not that I expect you to check their histories, but I actually created a number of them so I could merge the sheer number of loose and lame stub pages that were floating around. I echo everybody else when I say that lists are better than individual stubs.  Article deletion should not purely be about the current state of one or the other - it should be baout the notability of them, really. hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you tell me, looking at the ones I see you created, no insult intended, but I think they're the worst of the lot, so I wouldn't say your creation of them means much. If for some reason there was a problem with the concept of the monsters pages, I would say converting the various monsters pages would actually make for a much better base to start the articles with than what's there now.  At the least, the monsters lists are reasonably complete.  But then, I'd say they're arguably better than all the episodes articles, so don't feel too bad.  I would, however, suggest that you at the least, start looking for a reasonably complete episode list.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dreadful show, but fairly notable, and merged lists such as this are the normal way that minor characters such as these are generally handled. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A lot of work put in, the list is well presented, and references to episodes exist.--Ng.j 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Let this page stay. If they delete this, no one will have know what each monster is and their pictures will be orphaned. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong (possibly Speedy) Keep - I'm sorry, was there an actual reason for deletion in there? Let's examine closer....
 * "Unencyclopedic" - Vague non-argument. Might as well be a !vote.  Fails WP:ILIKEIT.
 * "...only comprised of plot summaries..." - You mean "information from the primary source", i.e. the work itself? For works of fiction this is not only normal, it's the most effective way to ensure accurate information on elements within that fiction.
 * "It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context." - Somehow you missed the numerous inline citations referring to "this character did X in episode Y." How does that not make it clear that this article is talking about a separate, fictional universe?
 * "...(we can't) get any kind of secondary sourcing..." - The only pressing reason for using secondary sources in works of fiction is to establish notability, not to provide "out-of-universe context". This has been done by the "parent article".  Any use of subsequent use of secondary sources in this article is a nice bonus, not a necessity.
 * "...because VR Troopers is relatively obscure..." - Red herring. It's not obscure enough for you to have nominated this article due to notability issues, because the argument clearly won't hold water.
 * "...article (is) unmaintable...." - How? It's a listing of monsters/villains/foes in a finished series with a finite, known number of episodes.  It is almost a poster child for being maintainable, as there is slim to no chance of there being a need for major additions or changes made to the article from its current form.
 * Finally, I'd like to echo what a lot of other people have said: this is a list of minor characters, merged into one article to provide accurate, detailed information on a subject without needlessly detracting from the flow of the main article on the topic. It's SOP for character-rich works of fiction; nothing about this is different than what is outlined in WP:FICT and what has been already done in dozens of other "minor character" lists for TV shows. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to take the "unencyclopedic" word totally out of context. If I had just written that, go ahead and tear me up on it, but after that I try to provide other reasons based on policies, so, honestly, why are you making a mountain of a mole hill?
 * I didn't say that plot summaries were terrible and should be completely eliminated from all articles, but WP:NOT#IINFO says that there needs to be more than that. WP:WAF: (Plot summaries) is fine, provided such fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article.  This is all the entire article is, save for the "this monster appeared in episode X" bits, which are essentially plot summaries anyway.  I like how you skip that line and totally trash everything else about the argument.
 * If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist. Sometimes people say "keep and cleanup," waiting for more sources.  That isn't going to happen here.  VRT was obscure, will stay obscure, what other source will there be besides the show itself? hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist." There's no policy that says that, certainly not in the manner in which you intend it.  The closest you can come is WP:N, and since notability has already been established it doesn't apply.  Even ignoring that, it is ludicrous to suggest that for works of fiction we cannot use facts from the primary source unless we also have a secondary source which contains more facts about the topic.  For works of fiction, secondary sources are inherantly unreliable for determining facts, or at the very least are less reliable than the primary source, i.e. the work of fiction itself.
 * As for the "plot summary" objection, it too doesn't apply. For works of fiction, sub-article lists are kind of an exception, or rather cannot be evaluated as a stand-alone document.  They exist solely to retain useful, noteworthy information without detracting from the quality of the "primary" article.  They are some of many articles which are exceptions to all of the guidelines you've linked to, particularly WP:WAF.  To expand on what I said before, there are reasons why some documents are policy and some are merely guidelines: the liklihood of exceptions. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another, quick point: you keep repeating how "obscure" VR Troopers is. It's not.  First off, it's notable enough to be a well-sourced Wikipedia article that passes WP:N with flying colors.  Secondly, if there were some issue of "obscurity" someone (like, y'know, you) would have nominated it for deletion, successfully deleted it, and this whole argument would be moot.  Not the case.  Thirdly, no matter how many times you say something, it won't become true.  I realize the inherant difficulty in proving a negative, but you haven't even brought up any kind of indication other than continually repeating "it's obscure" over and over and over again.  If you really have a problem with the VR Troopers article, add it to the nom; otherwise, drop the damn straw man. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue</b> <b style="color:green;">check</b>) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - deleting this would set a precedent for deleting all character lists, and the show is fairly notable, even if it isn't so in your area HornandsoccerTalk 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep - deleting this will make Wikipedia look bad in the eyes of many who visit here and I seriously DO NOT CARE TO HEAR WHY IT WOULDN'T. It's sad that other, more meaningless things can have articles but this can't. I think there is prejudice here, clearly. If articles like these get deleted while other pointless ones remain, Wikipedia would eventually fail. And when it does, we, the fans, will not listen to any complaints brought on by those pro-deletion fanatics who will no longer have a Wikipedia to work with. I once was a strong fan of Wikipedia, but after seeing articles like these, I am having second thoughts. 71.249.255.91 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -I agree with the argument of Hornandsoccer.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 01:05, 7 April 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.