Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit-beast (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. kur ykh 09:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-beast

Article fails to meet policy: WP:N. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the nom hasn't given a reason for the AfD apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Yes I have. Do us all a favor and read all the text present. Not only that, but this afd should be closed, as the previous AfD was a delete, and this falls under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read the first afd from over two years ago, which seemed to be a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT mixed with WP:NOEFFORT. I've never watched Beyblade, but don't find the article "incomprehensible" per the original nomination (though it needs further cleanup) - that implies to me that the article has, perhaps, been improved since then, I would hope that the article would not qualify for speedy. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see any notability here either. There are a lot of words here but nothing to convince me that it matters. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I declined speedy as CSD G4 on this page. Were I to close this AfD now, the outcome would clearly be to consign this in-universe verbage to the bit bucket. Appears to be pure original research about a group of fictional creatures having no out-of-universe notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source?--Free way 8 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely in-universe, no outside notability whatever. RayAYang (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long list of extremely minor characters. Notability not even asserted, let alone supported by references. VG ☎ 09:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the page stay. I have not seen any other site that gives full details on the Bit-beasts. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete per Drmies. What is this and why do we care? It's a brief description of some generic monsters, followed by a boring list of trivia characterizing a bunch of them. At least with lists for Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon, the editors are good enough to mention how a specific monster figures in the plot or something. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 17 October 2008 (GMT)

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.