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. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no real definition of what constitutes a "monster". It could be a list of serial killers, or a list of Pokemon. I can understand lists by type of fictional species (for example, List of fictional extraterrestrials), but the term is too vague to create a list from. The items on this list range from ManBearPig to Basilisk to Pikachu with no clear sense of organization. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, too vague and ambiguous to be useful. RFerreira (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are inclusion guidelines in the article talk (in particular it cannot include most serial killers). Monsters occupy a part of human thought since antiquity, so there is value in aggregating them. Eldar (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But who determines these inclusion guidelines? They were created by the article creator, OtakuMan, so it is clearly original research. They are better off in more specific lists.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed these are not in the article itself, but part of the discussion on how to go about the article. In particular it shows that such a discussion can take place (which could not have happened with a truly vague term). Should the methodology that the article editors adopt be devoid of original research? That would be hard because I know of no outside article on how to make a list of monsters. Should the WP:OR policy itself not have original research in it? Eldar (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Addressing the concern of being useful, I've actually found this page to be a useful as starting point on doing research and used it recently to track down list of Japanese monster for a graphics design project I was working on. Granted that doesn't say it's in general useful, and I could have used List of legendary creatures from Japan but it was at least useful to me at one point. Next concern, vague: Perhaps the terms are a bit vague, but as User:Eldar states there already are inclusion guidelines. Finally on the organisation point, the list is organized into both culture/region for monsters of mythological original and by region for modern fictional. That said I am surprised it doesn't point to more of the specialized list, I would expect to see main articles header for each subsection pointing to more specialized lists, for example the sublist List of monsters#Japanese mythology should probably have List of legendary creatures from Japan as a main article and so forth. I do fear that if this list were to be truly inclusive it would grow to an unwieldable size, and might need to be restricted to the more notable monsters will leaving the focused lists to be more exhaustive. PaleAqua (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of legendary creatures from Japan is a more specific and useful list. As I said earlier, the definition of monster is up for grabs. Legendary creatures are not necessarily monsters and one that defines them as such is being subjective. Some people might worship legendary creatures. I'm sure a Hindu wouldn't call Ganesha a

"monster", but it is, in fact, in the "List of monsters".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think that the true problems with this list are that it needs to be better sourced and that it needs to provide more than a list of blue links. I can only say weak keep because I think that it's clear that this would work better as "Lists of monsters" and broken down into separate lists or incorporated into other lists of frightening mythical creatures. However, the rationale that "There is no real definition of what constitutes a 'monster'" doesn't justify deleting an article. If that's the problem, then add some context, or move it to a more politically-correct title that doesn't offend other monsters. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, it's not that the term monster is undefined, just that it is relative to the person's views and does not describe a specific set of fictional or non-fictional creatures.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see how there's any objective criteria for inclusion. Even if there was one, like List of Fictional Monsters or something like that, that list is so unmanageable, it's a lot like having the old List of actors with brown hair but blue eyes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I changed after looking a bit more into the above arguments and the other lists. This list is huge, but I would be a bit remissed to remove all of that content and useful work. But I find the article title generally problematic. I would be a lot more comfortable if this was a disambig page that led off to the more specific categories. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the creator of this list, I formed it over two years ago as a means to make a place for those interested in mythical and fictional monsters to find information about them. It has proven to be very popular to the point where Google lists this page first and foremost when you Google search "List of monsters". I had originally participated in making a list of monsters in Castlevania, but found that the monsters included went beyond the normal monsters we think of on an everyday basis. I decided to do some research in order to gather some more information, but I could not find any other List of Monsters online. So, I created one here since I don't own a web domain, and I figured that by linking to other Wiki pages about monsters would make for an invaluable resource. And, to my knowledge, it has. I myself have spoken with the creator of the webcomic "Castle of Cards" who has said she has used this list for research for her comic. I claim that this list does serve a valuable purpose and use for those interested.
  

Addressing your concern about definition, I actually went to the web page for Monster here on Wikipedia, and found it lacking. The first sentence on that page says "A monster is any fictional dangerous or hideous creature, usually in legend or horror fiction," which is actually incorrect. Going to the online dictionary of Merriam-Webster, I found their definition for monster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster. Their definition of monster as a noun is given as:

"1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 : a threatening force
3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind
4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
5 : one that is highly successful"

Therefore, if it's Objectivity that you are looking for, I believe my list is quite objective. The definition of Monster on its wiki page, however, is subjective as it does not abide by the dictionary definition.

In the guidelines I posted on the Discussion page for the List of monsters, where they belong, I gave what I felt was easily understandable criteria for the inclusion of monsters. I gave examples, details, and tried to make it follow the dictionary definition as close as possible. From my understanding, User:ZXCVBNM claims that legendary creatures are not monsters. I disagree, as by the definition, all legendary creatures ARE monsters. Are they an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure? Are they an animal of strange or terrifying shape? And furthermore, for creatures that were once human, note the 4th definition line that says "a person of UNNATURAL or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty". The key word here is unnatural, and all mythical and legendary creatures are unarguably unnatural, abnormal, or strange.

Another concern given was the size of this list when so many monsters are added. I have believed that the best solution to that is to list the more well known monsters of a certain category, and then also give a link to the list or Wiki page that has the rest of them. For example, not all 72 demons of the Ars Goetia are listed on the List of Monsters, only some of the more well known ones, such as Forneus. If the person browsing this list can not find the monster they are looking for, then they can follow the link to where they can locate the more obscure demon they are looking for. Granted, as of late, I've noticed someone removed this category much to my dismay, but before it was removed, it worked as such.

Now, if anyone feels that I am being subjective in the definition of monster I laid out on the discussion page, then I would appreciate it if they explain how it is subjective. From my perspective and based on what I am reading on the comments from others, it isn't. Bear in mind that I am not naming any real people as monsters in this list. Hitler is not a monster. A cruel human being, sure, but to call him a monster would be a subjective derogatory term as someone out there may disagree. This is why I made a point that, "evil humans are not monsters, but creatures that were once human can be monsters". However, legendary creatures, mythological creatures, cryptozoological animals, and fictional beings that even identify themselves as monsters are beings that I believe everyone can agree on as being monsters.

On another note, I want to point out that I do not list Gods, deities, or divine beings, as there is a separate list for that. If someone feels an entry here belongs in the List of deities, such as Ganesha (which I am not sure if I entered as an entry or not), then they can move them there, by all means. I don't mind. Also, it should be noted that the definition does not say that all monsters must be evil. A monster could be "an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure", and not be evil. Therefore, I made the point when laying out the definition in my own words, that monsters could be both good or evil. Or in some cases, even neutral. Likewise, not all mythical Gods are good, as I believe it was Athena that turned Arachne into a spider.

Lastly, my perspective on this nomination for deletion is that it is an over-reaction. Instead of making edits or changes to fix the flaws that have been pointed out, User:ZXCVBNM would rather see the entire page deleted. All counter-arguments to each "Keep" statement has been made by them. I have put quite a bit of effort into this Wiki page, and while it may not be perfect, it's still come a long way since I originally started it in 2007. Many users have added monsters and new categories to help expand the knowledge of monsters as a whole. To see all that work go to waste due to deletion would be a terrible shame in my opinion. If you wish to make changes to improve the list, whether it be renaming, editing the categories, or adding and/or subtracting entries, then that's okay by me as long as reasons are given. I would rather see this list improve than be removed. After all, there are a number of lists on Wikipedia that are useful, and those aren't up for deletion.

OtakuMan (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It can be sourced and it can be more informative than it currently is, as can be seen by my attempt to add some content and footnotes on the first few entries, but it would be a major undertaking and would work better if split up into several lists. I think that if people were to break this down into several articles and then to summarize the sourced entries, then some of them would be found to not qualify as fictional frightening creatures, such as the Mimi (folklore). I agree that too much work has been put into it thus far to simply eradicate it. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I take it you're voting Keep then, I presume? Thank you. If splitting it into smaller lists, and then having those lists gathered and summarized in the List of monsters is the way people want to go, then I have no problem with that. I'd be glad to work on tidying up the list and make it more manageable. I'd rather undertake the effort to make changes than to start from scratch. OtakuMan (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That seems a reasonable approach, most of the existent sub lists, see Category:Lists of legendary creatures, are split alphabetically by the first letter. It would be nice to have more than just List of legendary creatures from Japan and List of Greek mythological creatures for origins. Also the names should probably be standardized, perhaps using legendary creatures (since it already being used), and fictional creatures. Though subcategories might work better than sublists, such as Category:Greek legendary creatures, see Category:Legendary creatures by culture. PaleAqua (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete while the POV issue of "monster" could be fixed by renaming to "List of legendary and fictional creatures" such as list would be indiscriminately broad to the point of becoming a directory (something Wikipedia is not even though directories are "usefull"). Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indiscriminate. For example, I say that Mephistopheles, Daleks, The Invisible Man and The Shrinking Man are not monsters. Abductive (reasoning) 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Hopelessly indiscriminate and prone to POV and original research issues. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk, Abductive, et al. This is a profoundly indiscriminate can of worms. The Merriam-Webster definition of Monster listed above by the article's author is a case-in-point. We could include everyone from beezlebub to John Popper in this list. The only way to fix this that I can see presents its own problems, per Eluchil's points above. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk. Way too vast in scope and subject to POV. Pcap ping 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a hopeless hodgepodge, recklessly clumping religious folklore and pop culture fantasy. A major POV problem. Warrah (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no way on heaven or earth that such an indiscriminate list can be maintained.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What does it mean to be "subject to POV"? If it means "it is easy to fall into a POV trap", then the answer is to try hard not to. If there is existing POV, please point it out so we can learn from mistakes. I must admit that the large scope is a concern (though I would not use the term "indiscriminate" for this instance). Eldar (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you Eldar, I was beginning to wonder if I was going to have to fight off this gang myself. I find many of these so-called "deletes" to be baseless, using nothing more than foundation-less claims that the list is "indiscriminate" when I made it clear that it wasn't in my previous post. It's as though they aren't even trying to read, from my perspective. OtakuMan (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The meaning of the list is clear enough for the items included: monster has a rather particular meaning in fiction and mythology, and the examples make it clear. I'm not sure examples should be included which do not have even a section of an article, but that might be more a question of writing the necessary sections. Not being paper, we can handle broad scopes--if preferable we could divide it up into mythology and fiction, and then different types, & I think I would suggest doing just that. But a deletion based on "too long" does not apply to our project. It's like saying "too much information is available, so let's skip it." DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List of legendary creatures already exists.... Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although the defintion of what a "monster" may be clear in the minds of some editors, without a verfiable defintion, it is not clear to anyone else. Without an external source, there is no rationale for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but that is not a free pass to inclusion for lists of loosely associated topics. List articles that have not been externally validated in any way are listcruft, not encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (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.