Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monster (Lost)

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster (Lost)[edit]

Deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (Lost), this is sufficiently different that I am not comfortable deleting as a repost, but the core problem remains: the name is made up by fans and lacks a reliable source, and the balance of the content is also largely speculative. There is nothing here which can't be encyclopaedically covered without the speculation in the article for Lost. Similar concerns raised in Talk:The Monster (Lost). Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It scrapes WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT. PJM 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG's well explained nomination. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm a huge fan of Lost... but this is just wholly unnecessary. Merge any applicable content to main Lost article. No good reason for a separate article.--Isotope23 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has already been deleted once before. Crufty and trivial. Danflave 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above and in the previous afd. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Big Lost fan but this need to disappear back down the hole from which it came. Nigelthefish 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Again. This shouldn't keep reappearing as an issue, taking all our time, when it's already been clearly resolved. -- PKtm 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep. There's already an apparent consensus that Lost characters are notable enough for Wikipedia - and this is a recurring character in Lost. There are very obvious problems with this article, not least of which is that The Monster is not the official name of the character, but I see these as problems to be worked out rather than reasons for deletion. If we've already decided that Lost fancruft is notable enough for Wikipedia - and I think we have - then this should stay. --Hyperbole 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Characters of Lost. Upon review, it looks like minor characters are relegated to that article. --Hyperbole 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most of the article is original research. Any content not already found on a Lost page can be merged onto one. --Kahlfin 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I had as when this was last created (and deleted): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monster_(Lost): It's still pure speculation.—Leflyman^Talk 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 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.