Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajarl (Monster Rancher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 - kept, could be merged - SimonP 00:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bajarl (Monster Rancher), Joker (Monster Rancher), Dragon (Monster Rancher), Ducken (Monster Rancher), Durahan (Monster Rancher), Nya (Monster Rancher), Pixie (Monster Rancher), Naga (Monster Rancher), Golem (Monster Rancher), Zuum (Monster Rancher), Beaclon (Monster Rancher), Tiger (Monster Rancher), Hare (Monster Rancher), Baku (Monster Rancher), Gaboo (Monster Rancher)

The Pokestubs are bad enough, but Monster Rancher is even worse. There are hundreds dozens of Monster Rancher monsters, and other Poke-alikes; do they all need to be on Wikipedia? A Man In Black 06:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Only Bajarl (Monster Rancher) was originally submitted, I added all those after it. It is only fair that they should all share the same fate. However votes below my last one may not necessarily be intended to apply to these additional pages. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

>Hundreds? There are 50. And if you delete the Monster Rancher stubs, by that token, you need to delete all the Pokemon stubs for the same reason. And the Neopets stubs. And all the other virual pet pages. And to a lesser extent, any stubs on videogame "ripoffs". And possibly stubs on dervivative movies and franchises, too. Why have stubs on Family Guy when you could argue that it's a Simpsons look-alike? And why not delete the Star Wars pages? They're just like Star Trek. Wikipedia is supposed to be totally comprehensive. Deleting pages because YOU don't like a franchise is just immature and goes against the inherent spirit of the Wiki. Please give a reason that's better than that. The page isn't offensive, false, spam, or vandalism. Just because you don't like the franchise or have the OPINION that it's superfluous is no reason to delete pages on it. I vote to keep any wikipedia page that isn't false information or vandalism. Too much information never hurt anybody. Keep, obviously. - Zeta7 06:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - See Wikipedia:Pokeprosal; it's currently being discussed whether the Pokemon stubs are worth keeping or consolidating. The Monster Rancher monsters aren't terribly excyclopedic, because, to be honest, nobody but fans of Monster Rancher really care about them. Contrast this with the more important Pokemon or the Star Wars characters and concepts, which have significant cultural and pop culture impact. A Man In Black 06:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that. If we're already planning to un-important-ise the phenomenally successful (by anyone's reckoning) Pokemon franchise, surely THIS should share a similar if not "worse" fate. I'm happy to see it moved as per what A Man In Black said below though. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 06:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when has notability been a requirement for a wikipedia page? Once it's established that anything too indepth or obscure can't be included in Wikipedia, I'll give you the point, but until then - none of these arguments actually adhere to real wikipedia policy. Unless there's a notice that says "Hey, don't write TOO much or else!", I don't see how Wikipedia could BENEFIT from NOT including articles that are factual. Wikipedia is not a real book with a limited amount of pages to write in. There are a number of articles on obscure data, facts, movies, or videogames that could just as likely be deleted. But I don't see how this website could ever claim to be comprehensive if "some information is just too much". Maybe you could just get rid of ALL the fictional pages? Or split wikipedia into fiction and non-fiction? I mean, all of my friends told me how great this place is because it accepts a high volume of data. I had no idea that it would be so discriminatory based on tastes. Oh, and A Man in Black, I notice that a high volume of your edits are to Pokemon pages. I wonder if your opinion on this franchise might have been infulenced by something else. These pages don't hurt anyone, and they don't violate policies. I don't see how you could argue for their deletion unless you change the policiy of wikipedia to exclude "information nobody wants". Which is an absurd idea - Zeta
  • Notability has nothing to do with how big an article is. There could be 2000 lines on this or more and it would still not change the fact it scores only 270 hits [1]. While Wikipedia might not be a paper encyclopaedia, wikipedia is also not a general knowledge base - it is policy not to include everything in the known universe. Megan1967 10:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seconded again! Both those pages would be valid, logically organised, and interesting. As an aside I think this "List of" prefix is redundant, so I would prefer to find it at Monster Rancher series monsters or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or consolidate with similar articles to create one covering some larger subset of the monsters in the game. Murgatroyd 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper and because it seems to be a collection of different but related monsters. Kappa 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite frankly I HATE people constantly spouting "oh this isn't paper!" as a reason why others' notability/(something)cruft deletion votes are silly. Why document the side details of a (comparitively) non-notable franchise? It's not favouritism, it's realism. Do I start pages about every single Golden Axe character and monster just because I love the franchise and could easily write a detailed page for each with "fascinating" (to me and other fans that is) details? No, because it's NOT important to most of the world. This is certainly far more noteworthy than Golden Axe is (I'll readily admit to that) but does not quite transcend into timeless culture the way Pikachu does. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't say, or mean to imply, that your deletion votes are silly. Kappa 13:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, well, I was speaking somewhat out of context about paper votes in general. Master Thief Garrett 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, or a site for the collection of all trivia about the latest kiddie craze. These individual creatures do not have any literary or cultural significance separate from Monster Rancher. Average Earthman 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Monster Rancher series monsters or similar, nn, other reasons and concerns as those voiced above. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete for the reasons above. Nestea 11:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge, cruft of the worst kind. The idea that those should be enyclopedic is laughable. Martg76 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it's laughable. The same should apply for them as for many other TV/book etc characters. E.g. there is Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, etc. or Admiral Forrest from the Star Trek: Enterprise. Where to put the border? It's not paper! Ben please vote! 12:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopaedic, WP is not a knowledge base. Most first appeared in a sequel which doesn't even have its own article yet. The Simpsons comparison does not hold - there is an article on Homer, yes, but the non-regular characters are listed in One-time characters from The Simpsons, not in their own articles. The same should apply here. --bainer 12:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I haven't even heard of Monster Rancher. It would be better to have the info all one page. There is no point in having a bunch of small articles that people have to wade through, when one article will provide the information in a more readable fashion. I agree with bainer. Orange Goblin 12:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - most of the entries just say "No Encyclopedia Information" or junk like "Poison (Pixie/???) They say it is hysterical. But the truth is unknown." BTW I was looking at the Pokémon articles earlier, perhaps when Monster Rancher has spawned 2 anime series, a live stage show, 8 movies and no less than 33 video games, and still be growing, it could possibly be considered notable. --the wub (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of themStancel 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Non-notable. Quale 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into as few articles as possible. Preferably only the Monster rancher article. Just a short description of each main breed of monster should suffice. -MarSch 16:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all. See, this is why I hate these group nominations. There are fifteen articles being nommed here. Fifteen. I'd be surprised if anyone had the time and patience to individually determine notability for each of them. I know I sure don't. The first one, Bajarl, has 1,450 Google hits, which is enough for a cartoon character in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes there are fifteen. The original nominator only nominated the first, and I, as noted at the top, dutifully added the rest. Or would you rather have a separate Vfd for each of the identical (notability-wise) characters? The less time this takes on Vfd the better, surely. Master Thief Garrett 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge all. Well-written articles about an awful but notable anime. —Xezbeth 16:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so long as all of the Pokecruft stays. RickK 18:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - more useful to users thataway anyway. -- BD2412 thimkact 20:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topics shouldn't be omitted from Wikipedia only because of their perceived childishness. -Hapsiainen 20:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia's strength lies in great deal in it's ability to have information even on things this obscure. Besides, Monster Rancher is really fun. -Birdboy2000 21:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • keep. Wikipedia will one day be a great cultural resource, and factual articles about pop culture are interesting in that regard. (I would also be happy with a merge.) Brighterorange 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If the series is notable enough to keep, then the monsters are notable enough since they'll add extra info to somebody who hasn't played the game but is looking for info (For example, the articles tell what the specific monsters look like, which can help somebody decide what the graphics in the game are like, or it can help somebody who reads that you can create different monsters with disks but who doesn't understand how the monsters vary.

(There maybe doesn't need to be a separate article for each monster though--you could probably make one "Monsters in Monster Rancher" article and merge most of the info together.

-Cookiemobsta 21:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Monster Rancher monsters as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 22:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just delete all of this so-called "fancruft" while we're at it? Why does Homer Simpson need his own article? *rolls eyes* Keep. They're just as notable as all the Pokemon pages; heck, just as notable as pages on all fictional characters. Ketsy 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Because none of these have any independent importance outside of Monster Rancher? Because Homer Simpson, the character, has notability, cultural impact, and is used as as a cultural referent outside the world of the Simpson's? Because Homer's distinctive annoyed grunt ("D'oh!") has made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? Because, ultimately, your reductio ad absurdum is, as the saying goes, not even wrong? --Calton | Talk 01:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I personally don't think that Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character. Who cares if others think so? What matters is what I think, obviously, since these Monster Rancher characters are being nominated because the nominator thinks they aren't notable. Ketsy 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, you seem to be using the phrase reductio ad absurdum in a negative manner. If you look at the article on it, you'll see that not all redictia ad absurdum (is that pluralisation correct?) are "silly arguments". Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the main article or List of Monster Rancher monsters. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 01:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge into the main article or List of Monster Rancher monsters. Jessicab 02:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge). Kelly Martin 04:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. I could care less which, because Wikipedia is not paper.--Unfocused 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them, without even looking at the articles, as per consensus. — JIP | Talk 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't triviapedia, nearly endless storage doesn't change our charter. Most fictional material only makes sense inside an article discussion the actual fictional work. Gmaxwell 06:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of them, just like we're doing for some Pokemon. WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot with extreme prejudice. :) — 130.76.32.16 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge and redirect the bejeezus out of them. Extreme fancruft. -R. fiend 20:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of work has been put into these - I'd hate to see that go to waste (or to risk losing another contributor to WP as a result), jguk 22:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all and do not (try to) merge. Usually we merge things like this, but how on Earth are we going to merge together fifty articles of that length? Sjakkalle 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By removing "breed a with b to get c", WP is not GameFAQs. Master Thief Garrett 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a place for this lameness. Grue 18:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge. Despite the apparent belief of its fans that these Monster Ranchers are on par with Darth Vader and Homer Simpson for pop culture impact, such arguments are, to put it politely, far-fetched. They are too insignificant for the amount of attention they're getting--- Scimitar 3:17 18 May 2005
  • Keep or merge. Monster Rancher characters might not be as culturally significant as say, Homer Simpson, but there are plenty of pages here that deal exclusively with characters, etc. that people not in that fandom wouldn't care jack about. Just in the realm of videogame players, Cecil Harvey and Kain Highwind both FFIV characters, have their own pages, and I think the Monster Rancher series probably has had more cultural impact than Final Fantasy IV did (as it first came out before the series got truly popular in the U.S., and it's rerelease made relatively little cultural stir outside of die hard FF fans). Goodrobot 2:09 20 May 2005
  • Keep or consolidate into one page, as per Goodrobot. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:48 Z
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Bajarl_%28Monster_Rancher%29_0718.html"