Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Face (She-Ra)

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 Redirect - nothing about a character from one episode worth merging. Pastordavid (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Face (She-Ra)

The article is a non-notable in-universe repetition of plot points from the He-Man universe and has no notability of its own. As such, it is purely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tiptopper 13:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to She Ra for the sake of consensus if not guidance at WP:FICT. Hiding T 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails all the mormal policies relying to fictional subjects. I'm against merging because that will just make a mess of non-noatble material in the She-ra article. Ridernyc 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because without referencing, what is there this is "good" to include? Nothing. Judgesurreal777 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do people assume that a merge means we put all the bad bits in the article we are merging to? I mean, can't people at least apply a modicum of good faith in presuming that a merge means merge information which meets encyclopedic standards? Isn't that what a merge comment means? Hiding T 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Hiding. Twenty Years 15:04, 4 December 2007 (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.