Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostron

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) 01:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostron

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman 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) 15:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not really appropriate for a separate article, but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. The form nomination used here does not address these issues, here or in the multiple other occurrences. As usual, I still cannot understand "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary" -- assuming that something sensible is intended, it might mean there is little likelihood for further growth in the article. I don;t see how one can really tell it, but once merged, it can always be re-expanded if the information warrants it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Content may not need to be notable, but it must be encyclopedic. WP:ATD allows for the deletion of non-notable articles, and this topic is neither sourced nor notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 23 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.