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. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toa_(Bionicle)[edit]

Toa_(Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)

Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.

Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.

"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article cannot be deleted because it explains a very important part of Bionicle, the main protagonists in fact. If it ends up deleted, readers will have a hard time understanding exactly what a Toa is, especially give that we can't squeeze all the info in one section. The Toa are the main protagonists from 2001 to 2008 and will be returning to that role in 2010. I think that what this article needs is some heavy-duty clean up and having the Toa Nuva's info compressed while the other Toa team's expanded.--Twilight Helryx 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of real life info (the creation of the original sets, for example) may also help smooth things out. By the way, the number of nominations is no reason for the article get deleted and fancruft can be fixed. Again, the addition of real life info would clear this as a fancruft article.--Twilight Helryx 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep character lists are considered acceptable for fictional works. I'd like to see better sourcing and some cleanup, but there's no compelling reason to delete at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep main articles from growing too large. No legimate reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (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.