Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series


 * 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 Delete.  E LIMINATOR JR  19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a warehouse to store lists of every character in every video game. This article is entirely unreferenced and composed of original research. It's never going to be anything more than gamecruft -- the notable characters (which maybe questionable in and of itself) have their own articles; we need not have a list of all the rest. Additionally, the article is full of fair-use images that don't meet our requirements for fair use.
 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I really think it's getting to point we need some new guidelines about lists.Ridernyc 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom (WP:OR and WP:NOT. Agree with User:Ridernyc that the lists guidelines need major revamping. - Rjd0060 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's more effective and efficent then putting ALL these characters on the DAH! and DAH!2 pages. BassxForte 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says there needs to be a list of characters at all. Ridernyc 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. /Blaxthos 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination, we seriously need some policy enforcement to contain all these lists, this is way out of control.  Bur nt sau ce  23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * coment not really the place to discuss this but I figured I'd mention it since it's been bothering me for awhile now. The growing bloatedness of wikipedia really needs to be dealt with. For example Article_size needs to put more of emphasis on copy editing and less on just splitting articles.  If your article is too long it's probably because theres to much information.Ridernyc 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I must comment that there's really no such thing as "too much information", as long as said information is dealt with in an encyclopedic manner.  This on the other hand is pointless trivia. RFerreira 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because Wikipedia has more opportunites for inclusion than a paper encyclopedia and this list is really masterfully done in terms of its comprehensive nature, use of images, organization, etc. No need to delete.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the images are illegal, and the aesthetics of an article have nothing to do with the reasons for considering deletion. /Blaxthos 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keeping an article over images seems like an "I LIKE IT" argument to me. RobJ1981 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Article is entirely fancruft, no references... Delete  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 19:35, 10 October 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.