Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megas (character)

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. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megas (character)[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Megas XLR 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) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- because this character has no notability beyond the TV series it appears in, any article on it will contain nothing but plot summary and miscellaneous trivia. There is no sourced content to salvage, and other articles about the TV series already contain all the trivia and plot summaries they need, so a merge is not appropriate. The title is not a likely search term, so redirecting it would be pointless. Reyk _YO! 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spun this article out from Megas XLR about 2 and a half years ago for space reasons (frankly I had forgotten about it). It's not going to improve enough to meet the inclusion criteria and the content is crufty detail anyway. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's not quite true. Original research and unsourced statements, at the very least, should be deleted on sight rather than tucked away inside another article. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no speedy deletion criterion for fictional elements that would require WP:DEADLINE fix. Making a Wikipedia:Subarticle for the main character of a show is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No sub-article is acceptable unsourced. In the guideline you mentioned there's the "No need for haste" and "Breaking out an unwanted section". There's also the Avoiding unnecessary splits section in WP:SS. Jay32183 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability established; no grounds for an encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 17 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.