Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanosaurus (Godzilla)

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. Discussion of a possible merge can continue on the articles talk page, but no consensus on that issue is apparent below. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanosaurus (Godzilla)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Terror of Mechagodzilla 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) 23:51, 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 Terror of Mechagodzilla, (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 only one (arguably) non-primary source. Cheers, CP 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Terror of Mechagodzilla. 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 02:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terror of Mechagodzilla. There probably is some room for expansion, since there are plenty of kaiju magazines that could be used as sources, but the monster only appears in one movie, so we might as well discuss it in the movie article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:37, 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) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My vote is a keep. The merge should then be discussed at the appropriate place, which in this case, is probably a project talk page. DGG (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But just to confirm, after it's "kept" you'd wanna "merge" it? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While DGG certainly can answer for himself, based on what he's said in other discussions, (and what I am saying below) is that the purpose of this discussion really is to see whether there is consensus to delete the article. The issue of what to do with the article once kept is a normal editorial decision, and probably requires a better discussion than it can receive in five days here. This is especially true when there are a series of related articles nominated, and a comprehensive approach to all the articles is appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of monsters from the films; I understand that such a list would need to be created. As always, this is subject to change by normal editorial consensus after the afd. Insufficient notability for a standalone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real giant monster. ZombiesOfRock (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:51, 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I gotta agree with DGG. It's a weak article, but not one deserving of summary deletion. it would be better to create a list of Minor toho Kaiju and put the content there.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur. I appreciate removing harmful material but this is not that. A series of AfD's? This really does seem draining on the community to essentially turn the project into a battlefield when more thoughtful organizing of content would benefit all concerned. Also here are several sources that may help this article. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 28 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.