Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra Monsters (2nd nomination)

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 delete. WP:V is the killer argument here: if an article has zero sources even after two weeks of AfD, it is gone. Our core policies require that all articles must be verifiable to readers through the inclusion of references to reliable sources, and this article has none. Sandstein 06:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Monsters[edit]

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

Trivial list of mostly one-shot characters. Even if reformatted into a proper article on the topic, there don't seem to be enough sources to really make a decent article out of it. TTN (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Completely unreferenced, and I can't say that I see the value in a list of this sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Trying to delete this article again sounds more Wikipedia:I don't like it rather than deleting cruft and TTN admits he is basing this on the belief that it does not SEEM like there is enough sources even though there likely is. How many sources are enough to keep this article afloat? Yapool Seijin (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the above source links and tell me if you see anything that looks viable. If there's nothing good there, that is usually a very good indication that there are not enough sources to establish a topic as notable. There are obviously exceptions for obscure print sources and other language articles, but there's currently nothing to assert that those exist for this topic. TTN (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you did not type it in its native language. https://www.google.com/#q=%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88%E3%83%A9%E6%80%AA%E7%8D%A3 With 1.14 million results something useful is likely to turn up. Yapool Seijin (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered search results are quite worthless for this kind of thing. That the topic is part of a long-running franchise and happens to be mentioned often because of that is not an indicator of notability. Pretty much any article that mentions the series will probably mention these, but that is entirely in the context of their in-universe role. Citing that the Japanese Wikipedia article is full of valuable sources would be a better argument, but unfortunately in this case the Japanese article is also just in the same exact state of disrepair. Honestly, even if there are sources, I think they're going to be limited to the production details of certain costumes and such, as is the nature of such a franchise. Maybe I'm completely wrong and there are an abundance of sources, but giving an unfiltered Google search does not show that. TTN (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case why not divide it up into character list articles? I've seen the Japanese Wikipedia do it and many Kamen Rider and Sentai articles to it, just include the humans. It's a suggestion. Yapool Seijin (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ultraman was a freak-of-the-week show, so each monster was essentially one episode. Rather than list them all here, this information should be included in episode guides for their respective shows. No need for a separate page. On the other hand, I'm not sure who wants to undertake that daunting task. Maybe the otaku who made this list! Jergling (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate fancruft. — Wylie pedia 12:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft implies the interest would apply only to franchise fans, the google link I gave kinda disproved that since there is enough interest in these monsters to have massive amounts of merchandise. Yapool Seijin (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still indiscriminate. As the mom stated, "trivial" and "one-shot", even if this was a list for guest characters on a popular TV show. — Wylie pedia 13:10, 11 July 2016 (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.