Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ultraman Mebius monsters

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Mebius monsters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details that does not need to exist in its current form. The characters mostly only appear in a single episode each, so an episode list would be the ideal place to describe them. There is no real use in merging the information or converting this article due to the nature of the writing, so someone would be better off to start from scratch were they to make an episode list. TTN (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or merge to Ultra Monsters. Lists like this are in fact the preferred format for this sort of fictional element, because while individually the list's subjects are not notable, as a group, they are, and given the length of the page this might well be a valid WP:SPINOUT of Ultra Monsters. While the list in its current state is indeed deplorably crufty, plot-heavy and unreferenced as per the nominator's rationaile, those are issues to be resolved through cleanup, not deletion, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to what needs to be covered with fictional subjects. Lists of things like non-plot related video game bosses, one-off characters, inconsequential plot devices, and such elements are all too in-depth for a general encyclopedia. These characters are mostly those who are the focus of only a single episode where they are only plot devices for the characters to fight, much like the costumed villains in Scooby-Doo or minor characters introduced just to be one-episode murder victims on dramas. They are relevant to the episode, but not the overall series. TTN (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS disagrees. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? There are probably hundreds of such lists, but hundreds have also been deleted over time as well. WP:NOTPLOT should be followed in that the lists needs to correspond to the proper level of plot detail needed to properly summarize for the understanding of the reader. Lists of main characters can be called necessary, but something like this, which should be covered in an episode list, is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this "could be covered in an episode list" doesn't work, because that would violate WP:UNDUE. Episode lists are about the episodes, not for summaries of the monsters appearing in them. As I mentioned above this is a WP:SPINOUT of Ultra Monsters and, if not kept, should go back into there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information these need is limited to a few sentences that can easily fit into a summary. This isn't like a regular character list where overall descriptions of the characters help to complement the plot summaries, but it is instead a collection of minute details relevant only to fans. For a general reader, "Monster X with unique attribute Y attacks for reason Z" is about all we need to describe. There has to be a cutoff for characters deemed too minor to actually detail, and this should be it for this series. TTN (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Excessive fictional detail listing without real-world demonstrated importance. There's little that is appropriate to merge up, and the title is not a reasonable search term. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge—fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. N2e (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- standalone lists are articles and so need to meet WP:V and WP:GNG the same as other articles do, and this one is nothing but unreferenced in-universe plot summary. The parent article is already heavy on cruft and would be even worse if anything here were merged into it. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - I'm more inclined with delete, Both article & List have far too much detail, Plus as above the List fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:02, 6 November 2013 (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.