Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquadon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Zoids. MBisanz talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aquadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. lack of notability outside the Zoids universe.Mrathel (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Tealwisp. A few important ones would help introduce people to the general idea of the show.The Locke (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It might not warrant a separate article, but the nominator does not indicate why it doesn't deserve coverage at all. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Discuss how to merge at the appropriate place,which is not here--I don't think anyone is seriously defending it as an article As far as merged content goes, none of the objection in the nomination are even relevant to possible unsuitability for merged content, since primary sources are acceptable --and even preferred--for straight description. DGG (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (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.