Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchelny


 * 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. --- Gl e n 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Witchelny
I originally prodded this article with the following reason:


 * not a place that really "exists", just mentioned on some cards in a card game. Information already contained on character articles. Very crufty, made in haste, does not meet WP:FICT recommendations.

User:Kappa, however, deprodded the article with the reason "looks mergable".

Which promted this discussion:


 * I know we tend to disagree on these kinds of things, but before you re-deprod that article again I'd like to point you to this talk message by the article's author. The bulk of the article was created in one edit, the second edit slightly changed some wording, and then the last two edits were adding Digimon links at the bottom. Bandai has not defined this place any more than a brief mentioning on the cards for those 4 Digimon, who's articles all mention Witchelny.  This article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept in an AfD.  Deprod it if you must, but I don't see what good that will do. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this is supposedly the home of 4 digimon, it will only be recreated if it isn't kept or merged somewhere. Kappa 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is completely inappropriate, whether or not someone will try to recreate it should not mean we accept things that violate core policies. Why do you think you are helping by mass removing prods on things you know nothing about, or for reasons that are.. absurd, such as this? It's clear as hell that this article needs to be deleted and a discussion for deletion is unnecessary, which is why we have prod in the first place. You are totally violating WP:POINT, and if I have to I'll bring this to arbitration. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, OK which core policy is it supposed to be violating? Kappa 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT. It clearly violates all three of those policies, and doesn't follow the strong recommendations of guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. I should not have to tell an experienced user such as your self about these basic things. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement that this article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, and I move for a delete -- Ned Scott 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- Ned Scott 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as fancruft; one mention doesn't merit an entire article, especially when it's doubted as canon. Crystallina 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. We don't need an article on a fictitious place in Digimonland that can't itself be verified. -- Nish kid 64 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere, maybe Wizardmon or keep. Kappa 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete solidly in the fancruft category. Opabinia regalis 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ATTY 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Wizardmon TJ Spyke 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't merge unverified information, and without a source I can't help but think it's a likely copyright violation as well (it's worded just like you'd expect to read right on the card or from a Bandai website). The only information that is somewhat verifiable is what cards say they are from this place. This is already included in those 4 character articles, and has been long before this article came into existence. There is nothing to merge, thus nothing of the edit history of this article is needed. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that just about every single Digimon card (there's hundreds of them) all have some little insignificant write up similar to this, that Blahblahmon comes from the planet Nebulone and wears green pants. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Digimon, that's why I've gotten myself so involved in these articles, but even I know when something is extreme cruft and totally insignificant. When these characters appear in the anime series of Digimon they have new histories and personalities that are usually not based on their description in the card game (not only that, but a single Digimon can have several different cards each claiming a different thing about that same 'mon). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme cruft, not even worth the effort needed for an attempt at verification. Delete with a blunt instrument or small twisted horn. -- Hoary 06:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. WP is not paper, but it's also not supposed to be a load of cruft.  Tychocat 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with a relavent article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Michael 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 13:20, 4 September 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.