Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kururu's inventions

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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kururu's inventions[edit]

List of unnotable "devices of the week", many of which are created purely for one joke. Fails Wp:N, completely unreferenced and is almost entirely in-universe. Article is tagged for merging, although I'm not seeing how it will integrate with existing related articles Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.
Keep I see nothing wrong with this page. It has information useful to those wishing to understand the series, or find a certain bit of information about it. That is what an encyclopedia should be. Dream Focus (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PLOT, WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also fails both the old and current versions of WP:FICT. Bulk are one-ep items already mentioned, as relevant, in List of Sgt. Frog episodes. This amount of excessive detail and original research is unnecessary and best reserved for fansites, not an encyclopedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not suitable for a general-interest encyclopedia. Reminds me of List of Homer Simpson's jobs (currently a redirect to nothing in particular) and List of Peter Griffin's jobs (deleted after two AFD's). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear example of WP:IINFO if there ever was one. --Farix (Talk) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world information, total fancruft. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independant sources to show this part of the show is interesting by itself. A section in the main article would be more than enough, but even then should have at least something more than WP:PLOT and WP:FICT fialing descriptions.Yobmod (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply non-notable trivial cruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.