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 keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Rancher monsters[edit]

Monster Rancher monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Game-cruft which is entirely in-universe information, and unreferenced. It also describes minor characters, which goes against the notability criteria. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recurring monsters from a rather long series of games and a TV show. In concept it's a proper character list and has the same basis to be included as the lists of Pokemon. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query — what happened to the merger proposal for this? I would argue for a procedural close for sake of actually going through the merger proposal there, but, for the sake of this AFD I will say smerge any verifiable material to Monster Rancher, at least until we know what is verifiable and what isn't (hint: a lot it seems to be original research—stuff we cannot keep here; however we must be certain that is isn't. MuZemike 07:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article looks fine to me. A merge is the same as delete. There is no way to move over all a reasonable bit of that into the main article. Whenever people say Merge, it always ends in delete anyway. Dream Focus 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge doesn't necessarily mean merge all content. When a selective merge is performed, yes it can be anywhere from a 1-99% merge, so a 5% keep could be considered a delete I guess, but some information is still kept. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To go further than Kratos some Keep are Pyrrhic victory for those who supported the Keep. Worst example is a Manga article lacking review can have its content verifiability contested or even deleted as without review you may prove the manga exist but you can hardly prove that the content in term of the plot and characters isn't utter bullshit. Yes that very back-handed but i assure you that you will have the utmost difficulty to prove the content. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why it is within the Anime/Manga project scope ? I noticed that the parent-article is not within our scope. --KrebMarkt 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Monster Rancher anime series (and a manga too I think) where a lot these characters appear. All the MR articles seem to be horribly maintained, which is most likely why it's not categorized and stuff. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That one will need one ad-hoc task force to put it back to shape. At least this one is reasonable number of article wise. I'm inclined to keep, trim the OR, cross-source between games and anime and add citations from RS reviews telling how much the monsters are an important part and/or great part of the games and anime. Yea, i will vote keep if people can bring 3 or more of those citations, enough materials to start a reinforced concrete quality reception section at the bottom of the list. --KrebMarkt 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Contra the nominator's assertion, these are not "minor characters" but the main point of the series: the monsters that are ranched. Given the mechanics of gameplay is focused on working with these characters, and a quick scan of searches validates the series article's assertion of popularity and, more importantly, well-reviewed, I am entirely confident that enough quotes can be extracted from reviews to establish that the monsters themselves are an encyclopedic topic. Needs massive cleanup, OR-pruning, and hella better sourcing, but a clear keep and remand to the video games wikiproject. Bad quality is not a reason to delete -- it's a reason to clean it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cough...I was lazy WP:NOEFFORT ;) There are a bunch of review about the games most positive (The Neo is so-so), i was just too lazy to look for exact citations mentioning the monsters or the monster related gameplay. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I'll trust Quasirandom's above comment that this is well-reviewed. If this can be cleaned up and all original research removed, then deletion is not really the right course of action for this. MuZemike 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - These are not minor characters and this is a sufficiently successfully franchise that finding sources shouldn't be a problem. It just needs a lot of work. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:37, 16 February 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.