Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takron-Galtos

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. Tone 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takron-Galtos[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is one of many (much worse) planet articles for that series, all of them listed in {{Legion of Super-Heroes}}. Their fate should be re-considered after this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these with only one page of history going back to 2006/2007 is probably going to have a successful WP:PROD. I'd recommend just going ahead with them if you think they're truly not notable. I just chose Xolnar as an example, but I don't plan to do a WP:BEFORE for all of them or bother with many AfDs here. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the PROD patrollers love to undo PRODs about fictional topics, so I can't even bother. TTN (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Sigh. It's a gamble. Sometimes they work, but you need a tool like TW to keep track because the odds are that half the time some inclusionist will just discard prod 'because'. I still bother with prods, but about half end up here, including for pretty clear, unreferenced content. It helps to suggest in prod that 'this can be redirected to x', then it may be soft deleted instead. Or you can just be bold and redirect such stuff, the problem here is that if you are undone there is often no notificaiton. AfD at least makes undo of redirects less likely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of Mr. Link Dump has a particular special place in his heart for me, so he went above and beyond when doing his "job" of it. I doubt it's worth it in the long run. TTN (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 2019 (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.