Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Orga

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 no consensus. merging doesn't require continuation of this AfD and there's no-consensus to delete. StarM 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Orga

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla 2000 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) 00:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- there is no call for an article on this creature because it has no significant real-world impact and devoting an article to it would be undue weight. None of the content is usable anywhere else because it is unsourced original research. Reyk _YO! 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fictional creatures that only appear in 1 work (in this case 1 film, discounting the tie-in video games) do not generally pass the criteria of WP:FICT nor WP:N, particularly without secondary sources to show notability. There are no sources here nor any assertion of notability, so it is unlikely that this could pass WP:V. The article is 100% plot summary and thus also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. It is highly unlikely that sufficient secondary source material exists to support an independent article. None of the content is mergeable elsewhere as it is entirely unreferenced and is just plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keepand discuss necessary merge at the proper place. No reason is given why merge is unsatisfactory & almost none of t he arguments given here are even relevant to why there should be a deletion rather than a merge or redirect. I totally agree it is not worth a stand-alone article. But material like this can be sourced from the work itself, & so there is no objection to merging. NOT PLOT is disputed policy, and in there is no agreement that it means anything more than that the total Wikipedia coverage of a fiction in general can not be entirely plot. And any article can potentially be improved. there is never a single case in Wikipedia where the last sentence of this deletion nomination is applicable. All the other things cited here are DGG (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole "NOT#PLOT is a disputed policy" argument is completely hollow, because every time the policy gets challenged it is overwhelmingly upheld. All the "disputes" over it in the last couple of years have not even resulted in a change in wording, so it clearly has widespread consensus. I can start a discussion on any policy talk page and justify placing a "disputed" tag on the policy, but that doesn't invalidate it. This article is nothing but plot summary, with zero references or real-world context, and the article on the film already has a concise plot summary. Where there is no useful, referenced content, there can be nothing to merge, particularly when what little plot info might be merged is already present in the target. I'm all in favor of merging in cases where there is information worth salvaging, but there is no such content here. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Current wording is" "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." I see the current wording as primarily inclusive: there must be coverage of the plot, and, it must be concise (but that's a relative term). DGG (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Merge This also strikes me as a clear case where a merge would be the appropriate approach rather than a straight deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect: To Godzilla 2000, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:FICT. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect one level up to character list and/or main work article as appropriate. Redirecting is preferable in these cases to outright deletion because it directs other editors to add information to the correct article and reduces the chances for recreation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here and no non-primary sources cited. Cheers, CP 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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.