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.
This is a list of mostly single episode "monsters of the week" that do not establish any sort of overall notability. There is no use in covering them in a list, as anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list. There is nothing worth merging at this point, so deletion would be the best option.
TTN (
talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, possibly restructure turning the page in an episode list. I agree with nominator that "anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list" but currently THIS ONE is that list, even if it currently it is differently organized emphasizing the "monsters of the week"-charachters more than the episode titles. The page surely needs to be improved, we can restructure it or even let its current structure adding some datas, I am quite neutral about that, but it is more a question of cleanup than of substance. For now, a bold deletion would be a damage for our readers if not replaced by a proper episode list.
Cavarrone 23:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's basically just
Ultra Monsters with more in-universe writing. These single-shot antagonists are not notable enough to each get their own write-up. An episode list, perhaps created in the main article, would be more appropriate.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 01:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge (and trim) into
Ultra Monsters per above. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails
WP:GNG.
Folken de Fanel (
talk) 20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (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.
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.
This is a list of mostly single episode "monsters of the week" that do not establish any sort of overall notability. There is no use in covering them in a list, as anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list. There is nothing worth merging at this point, so deletion would be the best option.
TTN (
talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, possibly restructure turning the page in an episode list. I agree with nominator that "anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list" but currently THIS ONE is that list, even if it currently it is differently organized emphasizing the "monsters of the week"-charachters more than the episode titles. The page surely needs to be improved, we can restructure it or even let its current structure adding some datas, I am quite neutral about that, but it is more a question of cleanup than of substance. For now, a bold deletion would be a damage for our readers if not replaced by a proper episode list.
Cavarrone 23:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's basically just
Ultra Monsters with more in-universe writing. These single-shot antagonists are not notable enough to each get their own write-up. An episode list, perhaps created in the main article, would be more appropriate.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 01:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge (and trim) into
Ultra Monsters per above. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails
WP:GNG.
Folken de Fanel (
talk) 20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (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.