Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaseidramon/Old

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete

Note: Whoever carried out the decision did not close this discussion thread. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaseidramon

An unreleased digimon character. There are enough articles on the ones which made it to market... Denni☯ 02:28, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

• Delete: Fancruft --Szyslak 02:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree, it's fancruft. --Randy 03:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. If only these users could devote their efforts to other topics which could use explanations this detailed. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 03:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• In light of the evidence that this thing doesn't even exist, I'm changing my vote from delete to mega-extreme überdelete. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 23:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft. And anyone who uses Pokemon as a rationale for keeping this is getting smacked with an e-two by four. -R. fiend 07:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This one doesn't even exist. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 08:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Of interest to some, negligible cost to keep, written in an interesting manner with high level of detail. Plenty of other pok digimon articles set a precedent. At the very least should be redirected to stop people wasting their time recreating it, since there's no indication this kind of thing is unacceptable. Kappa 13:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep only if verified, REDIRECT without merge if not Kappa 15:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd vote in favour of third-party articles on any human ever alive before I'd agree to an unreleased Digimon character. These are not of any significance at all separate from Digimon (and the same applies to Pokemon). Seriously, this sort of thing is what I've seen people hold up when they want to disparage Wikipedia - "why would you trust that, they have longer articles on pokemon characters than they do on Nobel Prize winners" Average Earthman 16:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia which accepts or rejects articles for the sake of its image isn't one I would trust, or wish to support. Also currently, blinding trusting wikipedia on anything would be unwise; this may change if a system of marking verified information is developed. Kappa 20:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep.: I think that some would find this compelling; perhaps fans would like a glimpse into an unreleased character and a bit into an unreleased movie. I think it should stay. --Akira Ifukube fan 19:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: User's first edit was to this page
• Keep this. When it comes to the Digimon articles, it's very well done. We don't need to be restricting information, even if the subject is an obscure character. If we have it, there is a wider spectrum of info available. --Fredrick conner 20:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: User's first edit was to this page
  • Remove votes from accounts created for VfD --Improv 21:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Wyss 20:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Forgetting the obscurity for a minute, can someone verify if this thing even exists? The only mention of it I can find, other than wikipedia mirrors is on cheat websites, and they all mirror each other. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 20:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• We are not the first to question its existence. [1] [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 23:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't like Digimon articles, but at least the currently listed ones exist. Unless it can be proven this one exists as well, I vote delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:49, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not because of notability issues, but because I just don't really believe it. Here we have a Digimon who would shoot people with shotguns and almost raped a female Digimon? I don't know much about Digimon, but it's basically like Pokemon, right? Well, I can't imagine a Pokemon character doing such things. Everyking 23:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, because as a longtime digimon fan, I've never heard of such a thing. That said, Digimon is a LOT darker then Pokemon, and if they can kill off a minor character per episode in certain story arcs and air a genocide, they can have a rape. birdboy2000 00:07, 12 Dec 2004(EST)
• MERGE and REDIRECT into a List of Digimon 132.205.15.43 00:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I really really want to keep this one, just because it seems like such a well-written article (well-written meaning that I can understand it, and I don't actually know what a digimon is), but there simply isn't any proof. If an iota of proof appears, keep. - Lifefeed 19:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft, and not even real fancruft at that. --Improv 21:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need a page for every pokemon and digimon character, let alone every character that was ever contemplated. Jacob1207 05:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Can we start from here and then delete all of the rest of the digimon rubbish? Cull it all back to a single article. It would be just like having an encyclopaedia. --Bucephalus 11:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia??? You're talking crazy! -R. fiend 03:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 21:05, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.