Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains of Ace Lightning
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 was Delete. Although numerically the keep !votes are equal in number to the deletes, the criteria cited by the deletes was per policy/ guideline, and that of the keeps was not. So it was necessary to give much higher weighting to the deletes. JERRY talk contribs 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Villains of Ace Lightning
Article was originally named Minor Villains of Ace Lightening however the creator renamed it after the PROD notice to avoid deletion (his own words). Nothing else in the article was changed, however. It is still a list of minor villains, which are still not notable. The main villains of the show are already well covered in the main Ace Lightning article. This list fails WP:FICT, is completely unsourced, and primarily WP:TRIVIA, WP:PLOT, and fancruft. Failed PROD (deprodded during renamed). Collectonian (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nothing more then a original research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I created the original article, but do not see the real proper reason for proposal for deletion. There is another article - Main Characters of Ace Lightning which I could merge the villains article to. This article should nevertheless remain as it is. Only about three people have created it and edited, and I first created it to help boost the acknowledgement of the topic at hand. I am afraid I know very little about the rules of Wikipedia, other then no vandilism, plagarism and flame wars are forbidden, so I just help edit where I can to try and improve articles and Wikipedia. My suggestion for this article is to leave it as it is, or to merge it with another article. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The purpose of Wikipedia after all is to provide knowledge and this information is all factual and one of the few places it can be found. I agree it's hard to verify and I know how much stock wiki puts in that but it's information from a pretty obscure show. Isn't the purpose of a place of knowledge to bring obscure things out of the shadows so new people can learn about them? Gladrius (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to read policy and actually know what the purpose of wikipedia is before you make statements like this. This article fails every single core policy of wikipedia.Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why not? Many other shows, some with much less notability, have lists of villains. Why not this one? --Sharkface217 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a list of villains, its a list of minor villains. The creator tried to rename it to make it seem more notable than it is. All of the major villains of the series currently have their own articles linked to directly from the main Ace Lightning page.Collectonian (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, the fictional "minor" villains in the article are main villains, as at least several of them appear on a daily basis in each episode, in particular the one known as Dirty Rat. I put them together in one article as I thought it would be rather stupid making short articles about them all, ending up as stubs. What would you suggest to keep this article? Evilgidgit (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Daily appearance doesn't necessarily make the notable or even main villains, particular a main villains henchmen. Do they all contribute significantly to the overall story? Those that do could be merged into the List of Ace Lightning characters article while the rest need no more mention than what they get in the currently missing episode list and summaries. Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the first five or so all contribute to the overall story, as most of them have had their own main roles in the series. The characters Dirty Rat started a rebellion briefly at the end of the first season with the other villains against the main antafonist. Anvil often is used as a growing force of strength against the main heroes, Pigface is the most recurring villain after the main villains to combat the heroes, Googler was introduced in Episode 7 and has an untold history with the main hero, and Rotgut is mostly used for comedy but tries to follow a human character around to make him a zombie. The character Fred is the transportation for Season 2's villain and appears with him in every episode. As for the others, I suppose they are not entirely notable since two never made it into the series, and one only is featured in the video game adaption. If this article is going to be deleted, regardless of opinions, it would be best to move the notable villains into the character list. The ones who are not notable are included in the main article of Ace Lightning anyway. Happy New Year by the way. Evilgidgit (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Daily appearance doesn't necessarily make the notable or even main villains, particular a main villains henchmen. Do they all contribute significantly to the overall story? Those that do could be merged into the List of Ace Lightning characters article while the rest need no more mention than what they get in the currently missing episode list and summaries. Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, the fictional "minor" villains in the article are main villains, as at least several of them appear on a daily basis in each episode, in particular the one known as Dirty Rat. I put them together in one article as I thought it would be rather stupid making short articles about them all, ending up as stubs. What would you suggest to keep this article? Evilgidgit (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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.