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. postdlf ( talk) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Digimon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:GAMECRUFT EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 03:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per the compromise that led to List of Pokémon. The parallel recent AfD of that article is illuminating in the context of this one, although there is an imbalance in comparing the levels of notability in this one. I don't believe this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as the "other stuff" in question was arrived at after a long period of argument and a rough consensus for it. Dea db eef 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Deadbeef. This isn't much of a gamecruft thing either. While the article is a mess and lacks references (indeed, it's just a listing of Digimon and nothing else, lacking even short descriptions), AfD isn't cleanup and this can easily be fixed. While arguably detailed information belongs better in the Digimon Wikia than here, it's still important to acknowledge all Digimon here somewhere (obviously not at the main article). Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Narutolovehinata5: While I completely agree that AfD isn't cleanup, I'm not to sure that the article can "easily be fixed" - realistically it'll be at least weeks before the article resembles anything like List of Pokemon-quality, and that's assuming editors will be willing to clean it up. I believe userfication/moving to draftspace may be a better option as there the article can be worked on without violating policy or being re-nominated for deletion. Thoughts? Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom and WP:NOTDIR wikipedia is not a fan site devoted to every single Digimon character that has or ever will exist, I am sure anyone can look up all of these entries on wikia. Some of the entries are notable yes (The ones with the articles) but I can bet that they are already wiki-linked elsewhere through plot details. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Google reveals no WP:GNG level notability of such a list. AadaamS ( talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Deadbeef and Narutolovehinata5. Wikipedia can handle a list as part of its coverage of Digimon; there are entire books about these characters, so notability shouldn't be a doubt any more than it is for Pokémon.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Okay where are these "Books" that prove notability here and support that this list is needed for all of the un-notable Digimon? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment as nom: When would this list reasonably be used? None of the characters have a useful description. If someone needed this Wikia has more than enough pages covering it. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ VMS Mosaic: - WP:CSC #2 says "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic" as said above by me the names of minor digimon if they are relevant to the plot should be placed within the plot details. The other problem is that not every link on the list is non notable so the " Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" I don't see as applying here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Uh, what did I miss? Which ones are notable enough to have their own article? Which actually have their own article? The article would be WP:TOOLONG by an order of magnitude if they were all included in the parent article's plot details, besides which, that level of plot detail would also be too in-universe by at least an order of magnitude. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment In addition we also have: DigiDestined, List of Digimon World characters, List of Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01 characters, List of Digimon Tamers characters, List of Digimon Frontier characters, List of Digimon Data Squad characters, and List of Digimon Fusion charactershat all talk about the characters in further detail. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep and format after List of Pokémon. There are hundreds of these things; with one existing List article, all their names can be redirected to it. In the absense of such, the encyclopedia is likely to endure continual recreations by unaware editors. Pax 05:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are policy based arguments though that favor deletion here, I see no evidence of notability like the ones on List of Pokémon for many of the Digimon listed. recreations can be solved with WP:SALT. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

While Digimon aren't as widely known as Pokemon, they're certainly not not notable - the cartoons aired on US television, and video games are slated for release this year. But even if I were to agree it wasn't, in this particular case I'd be inclined to ignore the rules and let users have their "revolting fancruft" if keeping it contained to one list article saves us from a ton of individual article AfDs in the future. Pax 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Userfy/Move to Draftspace - while AfD is indeed not cleanup, the article is a complete mess and it would be a long, long time and a lot of work before it would even remotely be appropriate for mainspace, so moving it out and let willing editors clean it up is the best option. Evidence still needs to be supplied that most of the individual Digimon are themselves notable enough to justify the existence of a list, but at the same time I'm convinced that references do exist due to the popularity of the franchise. Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Do all those with blue links, link to List of Digimon Adventure characters? Regardless, character list for notable series are standard. This list helps bring about an understanding of how vast the Digimon series is. Adding additional information like the Pokemon list has, would be more desirable that what is there now. Dream Focus 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep-but clean up. Its pretty common to have a "list of characters" article for fictional works, since it provides useful information about the work without cluttering up the main article. I'd also like to note the similarities between Pokémon and Digimon, specifically that they are fictional series that include an anime, manga, video games and card games. While I normally attempt to avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, I feel its valid in this case since there is valid reasoning for keeping the Pokémon lists that applies equally to the digimon list. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:30, 13 January 2015 (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.