Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boogeymon

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DEL. mikka (t)

[edit] Boogeymon

Fan-made Digimon that's listed as a Pokémon stub. Almafeta 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the stub category has been fixed. Kappa 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do we know for sure that it's fan-made? It seems to me that it isn't. Tentative Keep, would consider changing vote if evidence arises that this is non-canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Did a little research and it isn't fan made (although it seems less notable than most digimon). That being said, I vote keep.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Pokemen are no precedent. Digimen are not even tangentially close to being up to cruft standards. Not encyclopedic. Geogre 04:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable. This is _not_ a Digi/Pokepedia! -Snorre/Antwelm 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Geogre. -ÅfÇ++ 06:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable digicruft. JamesBurns 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Digimon is worse than Pokémon, but they are notable sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Sjakkalle, but I think this is too substubbish to keep. Let's delete it and allow for someone to actually write some prose there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We kept all of the individual Pokemon articles, because like it or not, it had an impact and still stubbornly clings to life. Digimon was nothing more than a cheap knockoff of a popular fad, and worthy of note, but articles for individual digimon (particularly useless articles, like this one) should be removed. --Scimitar 14:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As somone who enjoyed the show, I am offended by all the childish bashing of it above. I can say that this is not a fan-made creature and is "canon". However, individual articles about Unremarkable characters like this are uneccisary. Delete it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Cain (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever it is, it is subtrivial information of no encyclopedic value. Martg76 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Digimon crap or delete, animation trivia, no context, no hint of encyclopedic notability. Oh, look who first voted "keep" with a reason unrelated to the article topic. Barno 14:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. --W(t) 05:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks more like a hoax to me. -- Natalinasmpf 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.  Grue  15:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.