Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solarmon (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Ifnord 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solarmon

Delete. Non notable comics person that is just like other one but yellow does not deserve article of its own. It is just Digimon fancruft. Article about this figure was deleted before (objection to deletion on the talk page is from previous discussion). Jan Smolik 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Real digimon, keep or merge somewhere. "does not deserve article of its own" is no reason for deletion. Kappa 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See category:digimon and subcats. You'd have to delete/merge dozens of of these. At WP:DIGI, we're trying to make these actually useful, so tere's no need to nuke our efforts. Circeus 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Keep BTW Circeus 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Other comments: the nominater is completely misleading by stating "that is just like other one but yellow". Hagurumon and Solarmon are perfectly distinct (if similar in design) digimon. Circeus 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you read the article? I quote: "Solarmon is a Rookie Level Machine Digimon that looks like Hagurumon, but is all yellow." --Jan Smolik 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Attacks and other stats differ. This is different from, say the different colored versions of Agumon. Circeus 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say Keep. After all, you never know, it might show up as a semi-important character in the manga and/or anime. N. Harmonik 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is semi-important the same as notable? --Jan Smolik 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Is might the same thing as does? Thatcher131 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, hoping that WP:DIGI will work on it. Punkmorten 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak weak keep in agreement with Punkmorten. I remain of the opinion that WP:DIGI should take their large and thorough project to a separate wiki, and replace their WP content with, say, two or three articles and one list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia and it's not a game rules guide. Character stats aren't encyclopedic, whether it's Pokemon or Advanced Squad Leader or a Star Wars game. But I don't want to mess up their efforts, just as I don't want Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR messed up by people who say "they just go around in circles and crash." Barno 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This article really is rather weak, perhaps WP:DIGI can merge it into something relevant? Sliggy 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but to where? Punkmorten 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no idea where it might fit comfortably. Therefore, in the absence of a page to merge with this article, I've changed my vote to delete, as it can be recreated when someone's got the time to build a stand-alone and fully-fleshed-out article. Sliggy 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently, as a substub, it should be deleted, whether it's notable enough or not. If it was this short, I'd delete George W. Bush. Notability, in my eyes, only comed into effect when there's a decent article there already. I'm giving you 3 more days to at least write a decent stub on it (2-5 paragraphs) or my vote stays the same at strong delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh yes, and I have to be able to understand it (try putting small bits of explanation of terms in parenthesis). For example, what is a machine digimon? A rookie-level digimon? --Celestianpower háblame 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'd still prefer it if I were able to understand it but at least we now have some content. Weak keep. --Celestianpower háblame 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Currently, WP:DIGI is busying itself mostly with character, anime and game articles. If this article is deleted, several dozens more will have to be (see for exemples, Kenkimon, Gabumon X and Witchmon). The non-list data (i.e. description and attacks) cannot be readily merged anywhere. The article is already listed at List of Digimon and Metal Empire (though the latter would be converted to a cat if I had my way, but we don't have the time for it ATM). I think statu quo is preferable at least for the time being, if only because we might have to find back the information anyway if the article is to be recreated based on the Pokemon precedent. Circeus 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Here's where I disagree strongly. The Pokemon precident is only there because the articles are on the whole, of high quality. See Bulbasaur (almost an FA), for example. There was a policy a while back to merge them but because we took the time and effort to expand them, they weren't deleted. If we hadn't, there'd be no "Pokemon precident" to fall on. if you can't be bothered to write a good stub on a subject, it shouldn't be here in my opinion. --Celestianpower háblame 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The sheer amount of articles in relation to the number of those willing to work them out prevents us to apply such an emergency remedy. I remain convinced that, given enough time, we actually can do it. Circeus 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    The point I'm making is that I don't see what good is to become of having it here. Experience shows that redlinks are more inviting for contributors than substubs. Also, if anyone comes across it now, will it help them? No. Better to start afresh when someone gets round to writing something worthwhile. What's already there looks like information that anyone that plays/watches Digimon would know, so nothing's being lost. --Celestianpower háblame 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. As said before, WP:DIGI has recently become quite active again, and the chances of us finding a solution for this information are high. I have another idea; give some time for us to archive information and find the weak articles. Make this a task for WP:DIGI and allow a lasting plan of action on where to store the information (if it is to be stored on wikipedia at all). As big of a fan of the Digimon series that I am, I know wikipedia is not our own personal fansite, and that a line should be drawn sometimes when it comes to the relevance of information. With Digimon receiving a new series there is renewed interest in WP:DIGI and more activity. I believe we can get the task done if you leave it in our hands. And perhaps a deadline, if we cannot meet (doing something that is satisfactory with the information), would just mean the articles do get deleted? -- Ned Scott
for those who are interested in the future fate of other similar articles you might want to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#is it possible to merge some digimon (monster) articles? -- Ned Scott
  • Delete as a substub on a random digimon. In fact, speedy as per CSD:G4. Stifle 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've seen Digimon articles shorter than this. I am not sure if they are expandable or not because they have not appeared in the anime or anything, or are just part of a list that Bandai released. I don't think all the Digimon have made an appearance in games and/or anime and/or cards and/or other items. However, I would keep it because, like Circeus says, lots more of these types of articles exist. It is possible that these articles are just short. x42bn6 Talk 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Soloarmon is a real Digimon, he has his own card and has even appeared in Digimon video games, I added a bit of info to its article a couple of days ago... --Nightmare_SE 25 February 2006.
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.