Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch
fails WP:NOT, specifically the bit about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information; fancruft  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, could easily meet WP:FICT if more detail on each experiment was provided. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above, it could be fleshed out some more (or just all the empty table rows removed) to become a decent list of minor characters that is allowed. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 02:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this page has been around for a very long time (September 2004) and only contains verifiable information. The television series centers specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show.  The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I and several other editors have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft.  All the information is from the show and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately.  While some may view the table as incomplete, it will likely always remain incomplete as only a list of names was provided by Disney, not full descriptions. -- Gogo Dodo 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just thought of a good counter example. This page is similar to the Characters in The Smurfs.  Both could be viewed as fancruft as they are both long lists of seemingly (from the non-viewer POV) random fancruft.  Yet from the viewer POV, they are both valuable information and is encyclopedic in nature. -- Gogo Dodo 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is verifiable, explained, notable to many. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. SynergeticMaggot 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Week keep; it does meet WP:FICT. -- NORTH talk 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A perfectly suitible article with intent to document these little monsters. I haven't checked on revisions lately, so I've no clue on the recent edits, but its prose is well-written. I would believe it was intended as as completion article, so we didn't have single articles of the monsters cropping up everywhere. -Randall Brackett 10:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Once more Gogo Dodo has put it beautifully. The page has indeed been around for a while and most of the people working on it (myself included) have been trying hard to make sure that it not only contains all information possible relating to a subject that is acceptable, but that it contains all ACCURATE information. Accurate, reliable information is incredibly important to Wikipedia, and the page contains accurate, reliable information that people have striven to keep accurate and reliable since 2004. It is true that the list is not completely perfect, but this is due to the circumstances created by the Disney company. If we do not know any more than what is on the page it is because nothing else has been revealed by the company. The page meets the standards of WP:FICT and are useful not just to old fans, but to new ones as well. The page should be kept. It is not fancruft, it is in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia, and it is accurate and reliable. -- Captain N, 10:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Even though not all the information is there it stil should be kept there... We're trying our hardest to keep it accurate, I am a big fan of the show and the editor for it at tv.com, and the information here is very accurate, if you don't want speculated functions maybe you should make it so that not just anyone could edit your articles... Aa623 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)aa623
 * Weak Keep as per WP:FICT. This is encyclopedic information about a notable piece of fiction, useful to fans of the series. Scorpiondollprincess 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Northenglish. —Caesura(t) 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:FICT and Lists and indexes are very nice to have Bdelisle 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment next we'll have Physics and Lilo & Stitch like the Star Wars/Star Trek fictional series. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but then track down the stubs that are creeping up for individual experiments and merge them to here for the future. None of the stubs are likely to expand, but this list is a good compromise. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is good idea. I've located all of the minor experiment articles and tagged for merge. None of these articles are written paticularly well, they're all minor and they would be better organized in the main article itself. -Randall Brackett 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I agree with everyone who wants this page to stay. Speculative info is better than no info, right?--StitchPedia 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, speculative info doesn't belong in Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I really want this page to stay,it is very useful to me.User:BEN1020:47,17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is what borderline cruft should look like.  Concisely put, and restricted to one article. Someone tell the Star Wars people. -- GWO
 * Keep. As stated by Gogo Dodo. -- MightyWarrior 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Came across this page by accident and must say: I like the idea. To call for deletion IMHO is a harsh way of saying that the page design could be better. I'd suggest converting it to a sort of an index page and moving the text entries either to a seperate page for each creature or to a page with all creatures from one class (see Smurf-page mentioned above). Also, the manifold use of the cell linking to "Leroy & Stitch" is more than redundant and only adds to the "chaotic" impression one gets. Just my two cents!!! -80.135.192.139 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article contains valuable and useful information for fans of this particular fictional universe, which has become one of Disney's most successful franchises. The only argument to cut it is because it is cruft. Well, if this is sufficiently crufty to warrant deletion, then there are going to be a lot of Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and Simpsons pages that are in danger of the same fate. --Draugen 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - See Talk:List_of_experiments_from_Lilo_%26_Stitch for more details --Bud0011 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per WP:FICT: "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."" The Lilo & Stitch franchise is notable and the experiments provided the backstory for the animated series. This was vfd'd before as fancruft. It looks pretty bad now, but it was a lot worse before. A lot of clean up is necessary though and some information about storylines should be placed as episode summaries. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep-This is the "everything encyclopedia" anyway!And Besides, its cool!--Fireball93 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not an "everything encyclopedia", see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2006 (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.