Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verokron

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verokron[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Ace through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable fancruft. None of these articles are referenced or even attempt to establish notability. As minor characters, they are not independently notable and are unlikely to be the subject of a search. If consensus is to redirect them, that's acceptable, but I do not see any need to do so. Fans will more likely to seek information on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 23 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) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect acceptable) per NinjaRobotPirate. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:30, 4 October 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.