Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door

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 no consensus. A good object lesson on the consequences of the word "cruft" in a deletion nom. Mango juice^talk 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

Fancruft, listcruft, dullcruft. Djcartwright 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fancruft--TBCTaLk?!? 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRUFT and nom. --Supermath 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the cruftiest of cruft. Danny Lilithborne 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Michael 08:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but reading fancruft, I see the following section:
Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.

Nothing on this page strikes me as violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research. Is it of value? Obviously not to those not interested in KND. But that is true for almost all television based wikistuff. I find KND to be well-written and immaginative, offering interesting paradoies of other television concepts. So much so, that I have made passing references to the show in courses I teach. Having a comprehensive list of episodes and technology references would be of value to me (and possibly others). I don't want to overstate this--obviously it is still basically a kid's show and I think its ultimate penetration into the marketplace of ideas will be limited. Jdclevenger 17:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If it's of value to you, then save it all to your own computer before it gets deleted, or help us move it to a more appropriate wiki. This is just too much detail for a global encyclopedia. Djcartwright 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well, for the reasons Jdclevenger describes. There are plenty of other such lists in Wikipedia, I don't see why this particular one is so much worse than the others. Besides, simply repeating words with "-cruft" suffixes over and over again is not an argument. Someone should actually make a real case for the deletion of this article, please. Bryan 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is only verifiable by watching the show, and is as such original research of the type of describing a bird by watching one fly. Also, Wikipedia ill-needs more lists of incidental objects in fictional series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is harmless and can be usefull to some people -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most Star Trek episodes have there own articles. There are lists of Star Trek and Star Wars of vehicles and characters that only appear in obscure comics or navels. If articles like Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild or Spells in Harry Potter are ok how is this TV series different? The 3 world nomination doesn't say much. Dullcruft subjects 'I don't personally care for it'. I don't care much of Diskworld articles, so should all Diskworld articles be deleted? Seano1 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jdclevenger and the other Bryan. Wiki is not paper. BryanG^(talk) 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT; failing that split into separate articles and categorize. Kappa 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This list covers seemingly all the items (thus making it indiscriminate) and none of them seem to have more than one appearance in the whole series (thus failing WP:N). There you have it, two strong reasons to remove this unnecessary kndcruft. Garrett^Talk 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I hate to repeat myself, but: Wikipedia is not itself an indiscriminate collection of information, that does not mean any and all articles must intentionally omit information such that they can be said to discriminate. Should we delete articles on 'worthless' countries of the world since putting them ALL in here would be indiscriminate? Maybe omit some albums from the Beatles' discography? There is a place for comprehensive and complete listings of specific information within a greater discriminating collection of information. --Rankler 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow. A fallacious Appeal to consequences argument, if I've ever read one... To keep this article because we may delete articles on small countries or beatles albums. --Kunzite 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, if not, reduce it to a few recurring and important items. For the same reasons that I'd get rid of three parts of the Star Trek and Star Wars stuff, and I see no reason to replicate the Encyclopedia of Arda either, and I am a huge Tolkien fan. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indrian 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT, appending -cruft to a sentence is not a valid reason to delete. RFerreira 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -AMK152 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list was created just for the sake of having such a list; The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; The list is unencyclopaedic. KDN maybe a notable TV show, but every single aspect of the plotline surely is not. This DOES NOT meet fiction notability guidelines as it contains no third-party sources. (And the primary soruced bits are not in-line with WP:CITE or WP:RS.) --Kunzite 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it per fict guideline or split into separate articles Yuckfoo 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's a bit excessive, but it seems reasonably well-done, and I'm sure fans of the show find it quite useful.Raymondluxuryacht 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will fans of show find it useful? Yes. Will everyone else reading Wikipedia? No. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:23, 20 September 2006 (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.