Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biollante

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 merge to Godzilla vs. Biollante. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biollante[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla vs. Biollante through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Godzilla vs. Biollante, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here and no non-primary sources cited. Cheers, CP 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Godzilla vs. Biollante. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Godzilla vs. Biollante, following my rationale at the Godzilla AFDs preceding this one. Zagalejo^^^ 03:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably merge to an appropriate list. None of the deletion reasons hold for merged content. Description is not OR. If we need the list article made, make it & hope it wont be nominated itself. DGG (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is your !vote a "keep" or "merge" then? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a "Keep" and continue discussion of a merge at another better forum. An AfD close as "Keep" does not mean keep unchanged for all time, but rather, do not delete and improve article by normal editorial methods, which can include merging or even redirecting if appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a merge to me. Once an article's been merged to "an appropriate list", it'll then be redirected. His vote seems a duplicate of Schmidt's suggestion, but as he's not replied I can only speculate. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. We needn't be in a rush to delete this. Here's quite a few sources that might help this article. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. Mind-boggling. The Godzilla editors are sloppy, so we delete all articles related to one of the biggest movie franchises in history? The cultural arrogance on display is breath-taking. Fortunately my enthusiasm for Wikipedia has eroded so much due to the increase of this sort of thing, that I don't really care whether it does get deleted or not. But if anyone really cares, here is one, no, make that two or, would that be three? individual print items on Biollante. Although, I suppose we're going through wiping out Mothra, King Gidora, Rodan, King Kong (oh, wait, there are English sources on him-- Keep him), and the whole mythology because there are no individual works on the characters in English... And everything's printed, in English, right? Well, if it's not, it's not "notable". Dekkappai (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those who cannot read Japanese, could you describe exactly what kinds of sources those are? (I'm not really disputing Biollante's notability. I just don't think there's much to say about the monster that we couldn't put in the Godzilla vs. Biollante article.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love Dekkappai's use of the strawman argument, ranting about Mothra etc lol. Although I also cannot read those sources, I seriously doubt that those 3 products (probably movie merchandise) establish Biollante's notability outside of the film. Banjiboi's sources merely prove the notability of the film. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Godzilla vs. Biollante per above arguments. Epbr123 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per recent Godzilla creature articles. Unless there is significant real-world context (more RWC than plot), then this doesn't merit an independent article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is no need for an article for the monster herself. Casecrazy (talk) 22:59, 30 December 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.