Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster


 * 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   interesting. While the general consensus appears to be to delete, there appears to be no valid reason for the deletion as the only arguments are "listcruft" and "original research". There is no evidence of original research, though there should be some references for where the material was obtained. For basic factual information about a fictional topic, primary sources are acceptable (though, as I wrote above, the sources need to be included at some point). "Listcruft" is a wildly overused "reason" which isn't really a reason for deletion. Therefore, the consensus based on the valid reasons given here is determined to be merge and redirect to Beet the Vandel Buster. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Monsters in Beet the Vandel Buster

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

This is a trivial list built out of unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is listcraft and original research -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there appears to be no information in this list worthy of merging. Though I don't technically think that the list qualifies as "plot summary", and certainly not as original research. It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —erachima talk 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree to all above. I can see no necessarity for this article.  abf  /talk to me/  17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Am appropriating the phrase It's simply unwarranted coverage of fictional minutia. --erachima talk . --Quartermaster (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect the monster list to Beet the Vandel Buster where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and where there's a nice subheading laid out for it already. --Lockley (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge redirecting each of the monsters, as it appears that this is not a major series, and there's room for them in the main article-- although one couldn't tell any of  that from the nom. Plot it isn't, original research it isn't, characters like these  in a fiction though individually too trivial for an article are not trivial collectively, and listcruft is IDONTLIKEIT. There's presumably a reason why someone doesn't like it, and it s a little more helpful if one explains just why.DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is not sourced from anything but the source material itself and it deals with a minor aspect of the series featuring "characters" which are unlikely to be dealt with individually by third-party reliable sources. A brief section in the main Beet the Vandel Buster article about the monsters in the series (if verifiable information about them can be found) should suffice. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2008 (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.