Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaragas

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 List of Ultraman monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaragas[edit]

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

Like most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there isn't sufficient coverage of this character to meet WP:GNG. A merge to List of Ultraman monsters is perhaps in order, but I really don't see the point of moving a chunk of uncited plot summary from one page to another (also entirely uncited) page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I honestly don't see the point in a redirect, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap and in this instance will lead readers to the information they seek rather than inspiring them to recreate this article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree entirely with the nomination. Nowhere near enough independent sources to justify a stand-alone article, and copypasting a lot of unsourced cruft from one article to another is an inappropriate use of the merge process. Creating a redirect after the article is deleted is a matter of editor discretion, but personally I agree with NinjaRobotPirate here. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 9 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.