Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bratz products

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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bratz products

Not too encyclopedic or of value, any information of interest is already present at the article Bratz, though even that article could do with some improvement - but this one is not encyclopedic or noteworthy and not worth retaining. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert per pixelface. Verifiable easily, just needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the current article looks fairly unsalvageable and Bratz appears to cover this. No prejudice against recreation if the Bratz Lines section in the Bratz article gets too large. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to a version prior to 70.79.115.146 getting ahold of it. The list has been around for two years and seems to have really degraded since mid-September. This version from September 10 looks okay. Here is a comparison between that version and the current mess. I think a list of these is preferable to having individual articles on each product. --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the contents to an intelligible version. VG ☎ 04:57, 13 October 2008 (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.