Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on Hayate the Combat Butler
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional places on Hayate the Combat Butler[edit]
- List of fictional places on Hayate the Combat Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list's content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans and does not contribute the the encyclopedic coverage of the series. Farix (Talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Farix (Talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a fair amount of chatter out there about Hayate, but even in fan forums, the setting isn't a topic of discussion -- let alone in reliable sources -- that I can find. As a topic, this is a nonstarter. I'm not seeing anything in this article that isn't already sufficiently covered in the main article, so no preserve-worthy to merge, and since the title is not a likely search term, I don't see any reason for a redirect. Result = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a subject of discussion within the fan base & not a key point of the plot so extremely unlikely to be covered by Reliable Third Party Coverage. That why delete rather than merge. Again a demonstration of the wrong perception that more articles on a series and better the coverage it receives instead people should focus on improving the existing set of articles. --KrebMarkt 05:20, 21 August 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.