Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimen
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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Justice League Unlimited through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Unless someone can source some of this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect reasonable search term.- Mgm|(talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not explain why the article shouldn't be deleted. Redirects do not need an edit history for copyright reasons, and can be created after an article is deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep as no explanation is given why redirect or merge is unsuitable--those matters should be considered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presenting a reason to delete is a reason not to merge, and not discussing a merge is not a reason to keep. Jay32183 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing there than WP:PLOT and Trivia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP They were a re-occuring group on the show. They also serve as self-referential humor from the creators of DC. I still don't understand why anyone thinks that you'd be making Wikipedia better by removing articles. This isn't spam, offensive, or inaccurate. If Wikipedia can have dozens of Super Mario enemies, then why not the Ultimen? == Chad78 (talk) 17:17 5 December 2008 (CST)
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for deletion is that there is little supporting material for the article. Well, it is hard to reference a copyrighted television show online. The article about otherstuffexists says the argument may or may not be valid. How about the myriad of fictional cartoon characters that are a part of wikipedia that do not exist outside of their shows of origin? That was the original reason for deletion. We should then delete the Smurfs, including Papa Smurf, Smurfette, Brainy Smurf... BTW, I'm not calling for their deletions. I have yet to see why ever deleting articles that are not: Spam, offensive, or inaccurate could ever help make Wikipedia better.chad78 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of sources providing real world context, truth is not the basis for inclusion, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:PLOT. Copyright status has no effect on the availability of sources. We have featured articles on fictional characters, see Jason Vorhees. Prehaps we should delete the articles on individual Smurfs. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid; it doesn't establish a basis for keeping or deleting. Jay32183 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for deletion is that there is little supporting material for the article. Well, it is hard to reference a copyrighted television show online. The article about otherstuffexists says the argument may or may not be valid. How about the myriad of fictional cartoon characters that are a part of wikipedia that do not exist outside of their shows of origin? That was the original reason for deletion. We should then delete the Smurfs, including Papa Smurf, Smurfette, Brainy Smurf... BTW, I'm not calling for their deletions. I have yet to see why ever deleting articles that are not: Spam, offensive, or inaccurate could ever help make Wikipedia better.chad78 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:50, 6 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.