Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bokurano robots

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. The consensus seems to be that this information is worth keeping, in some form at least. Good arguments have been made for various merges, but there is no consensus as to any particular destination or plan. Further discussion on this topic can be undertaken at the talk page; but as far as this AfD goes there is certainly no consensus for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bokurano robots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an extremely trivial list of plot details. Each robot, with the exception of the main one, only appears for a very brief time. Individually, they mean nothing to the story, so there is no need for a list of them. TTN (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : It can be merged to the main article.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The provided references are verifiable and reliable. Rirunmot (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate spin-off article & a good compromise rather than the horror of doing them individually. The only way to deal with this is by compromise. Probably edit a little, but that's not for AfD. DGG (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What I'd like to see is that this information be incorporated piecemeal into the volume summaries of List of Bokurano chapters, but not only doesn't that list exist yet, there isn't enough information in the main article to spin out into one -- as there is hardly any manga publication information at all. Which makes that a no-go. As a list of fictional objects, I can't say the notability of the set has been well-established: I've yet to see critical commentary on the robots in themselves (or even forum posts geeking out about them), only about the characters. Contra the nominator, however, they do not mean "nothing" to the story, as each pilot needs to figure out how to deal with the robot he/she battles, which as often as not requires come cleverness on their part. So: merge back into the Bokurano, where yes they will be a bit lumpy, but as demonstrated by the lack of manga information, this is not exactly a high quality article in the first place. (I fully expect that, once the licensed manga starts being published in North America, article development will head in the right direction.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out to me that the chapter list is at List of Bokurano: Ours chapters. I've added a, like, yanno, link to this from the main article. Withholding for the moment whether this should be the proper targe, as I think about it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone should probably change the name of that article or the main article so the series titles match. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main article needs to change, in light of the relatively recent announcement of the licensed title. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought (and work at cleaning up Bokurano: Ours) I've concluded my original idea was best: merge into the main article in the Dimensional robots section, converting it to a bullet or definition list as we do so. (Also, add the last couple robots, so we have all sixteen.) Yes, this makes the article a bit lumpy with plot, but the main article is rated Start Class for a reason, so it won't badly damage it there. Eventually, when List of Bokurano: Ours chapters has volume summaries, the list will be redundant and can be removed, but until that day, it should be preserved per policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeto List of Bokurano characters 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a pretty solid character list, though it needs more references. Merging to the chapter list wouldn't really work too well and merging to the character list just seems like a pointless exercise in making that article even more obnoxiously long.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bokurano: Ours, otherwise delete. From what I can gather of the list, these are "monsters of the day" that usually don't have an impact on the story beyond being something for the protagonists to overcome or defeat. This is always treated better in a chapter or episode list. --Farix (Talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite monsters of the day: the robots in all are, as a sum, the primary antagonists, and the main storyline is how each of the fifteen pilots battles a different robot. That said, I agree they are better handled as part of a comprehensive summary of the series rather than split out. My problem is, the article suite has not developed enough to have such a comprehensive summary where this material readily fits in. And yes, I am trying to follow policy and preserve information that will ulitmately be needed in a different form. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article as it fail both notability & excess of plot. Salvage what content is worth saving, i'm willing to have that content on my user page. Redirect to Bokurano: Ours to discourage any attempt of recreation. --KrebMarkt 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is fine, nothing gained by destroying it. Good to have this in its own article, instead of making the main article too long. Dream Focus 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (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.