Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red King (Ultra monster)

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 List of Ultraman monsters. —Darkwind (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red King (Ultra monster)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike some of the other monsters, it looks like someone might actually search for this character, as the article makes a few unreferenced claims that this is a fan favorite and popular monster. Who is going to search for the term "Red King (Ultra monster)", though? I suggest the disambig page be updated with a link to Ultra Monsters and this page deleted. That way, fans can still find the character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 6 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) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not really appropriate for a separate article but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. The form nomination used here does not address these issues, here or in the multiple other occurrences. As usual, I still cannot understand "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary" -- assuming that something sensible is intended, it might mean there is little likelihood for further growth in the article. I don;t see how one can really tell it, but once merged, it can always be re-expanded if the information warrants it. Whether someone will easily find the exact indexing term is irrelevant, it's still the best we could do. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge of sourced content to List of Ultraman monsters, per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 24 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.