Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crazy Bones

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crazy Bones

Fails WP:NOTDIR point 6. Indiscriminate detail about a notable topic, where all the relevant material is included in the main article. This is just a list of thousand names and numbers, none of them individually notable at all. Not everything that is ever produced or that gets collected needs an entry here. Fram (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only has little detail because I'm not a collector and thus don't have the sticker books or albums that contain the extra details on each character. Given time this could be expanded like the list of Pokemon character articles. If it is deleted users will continue to either attempt to add it to the main article, or re-create this article again. Oh, and cheers for informing me about this afd, that sure was good of you! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check WP:AADD. If it's deleted, then recreated, then it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Then if it's recreated, it will be salted. No biggie. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forsee the Pokemon problem here. I'm leaning towards a delete !vote, but still deciding. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any value in keeping this list. It seems highly unencyclopedic. LookingYourBest compared this list to the list of Pokemon character articles--but a key difference here is that the individual items in this list are non-notable. Cazort (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I'd rather see it all condensed in a single list, instead of getting multiple loose and stubby articles, but the referencing needs improvement. The majority of it is not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sourcing (most referring back to the company website) is hardly independent--not to mention listing them here violates WP:NOTMIRROR. Cazort (talk) 16:39, 19 May 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.