Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diclonius

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 of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diclonius

Delete

• Delete someone on irc told me to vote delete so uuuuhhh
• Delete Unencyclopediac and could exist inside the Elfen Lied page. The Google argument seems pretty weak, wikipedia has an incredibly high page rank thus it is often the first linked page simply because of its structure and how that interacts with PageRank. --ReptileLawyer 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge into Elfen Lied. Royboycrashfan 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More useless anime bloat; this does not deserve its own article and is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia, period -66.92.130.57 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Worthless fancruft. incog 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Pointless rubbish and very poorly written at that.--203.109.219.183
• Delete stupid furry shit
• Delete Worthless, pointless, bloated, stupid, rubbishy, furry fancruft. Fishhead64 06:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I guess it wouldn't be too wrong to call this fancruft... Sheehan (Talk) 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pedocruft. If an edited-down version would "ruin" the main article in a merge, then perhaps it's bloated NN on the face of it. RGTraynor 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not relevant to anything outside of the anime itself. Merge it into the main article. --UsaSatsui 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The anon makes many good points, as does UsaSatsui. Google hits =/= notable, per se, and it really isn't the least bit relevant outside of the anime itself, especially at this level of detail. Hince, textbook fancruft. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly written fancruft. 204.191.190.187 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep Verifiable, notable, loads of Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tons of esoterica is verifiable. And lots of sites which don't belong in an encyclopedia get tons of Google hits. As for it being 'notable', I really think this deserves explanation. A dissertation on some random aspect of a not particularly popular children's cartoon is not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. What is the value of this information to anyone other than a fan community that is better served by a website specialized in anime? -66.92.130.57 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merging it would do more harm than good to Elfen Lied - it would dominate the article. Wikipedia is not paper, and Google indicates that this is far more notable than many things Wikipedia has articles on. --Hyperbole 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well written, would ruin Elfen Lied on merge. --InShaneee 05:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merging or deleting would be comparable to merging Tau with Warhammer 40K or deleting it. JimTS 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is actually a major part of the anime, it could perhaps be condensed and put into the main article. There's no way we could delete this, however. It also isn't great at its present state, however...--CountCrazy007 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't interest me in the slightest, but it is a good article for those who are interested. Wiki does have the space to cater for all tastes. Tyrenius 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this; it's a perfectly valid spin-off article. -Colin Kimbrell 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A merger would screw up the Elfen Lied article. Pikawil 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is very useful. Merging it with the Elfen Lied article would make the article just too long. Breaking it down like this is much better.

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.