Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of Ultra

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 to Ultra Series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Ultra[edit]

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

While a recurring character, there does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to justify an article (i.e. it doesn't meet WP:GNG). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've removed this from the anime and manga deletion sorting page, since I don't think it is related to anime/manga. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above: oops, will fix. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Series (or Ultraman). No assertion of notability. Google search returns nothing useable, though there might be Japanese sources; if so, I see no reason why it can't be recreated, as long as it makes some claim to notability and lists some sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. Either way, it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect I can't myself say it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 19 September 2013 (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.