Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight (Digimon)
- 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Twilight (Digimon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Attempts to simply redirect this article to the character list have completely failed. This list is redundant to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters#Twilight and is an unnecessary content fork. Given the disambiguation, it probably isn't a likely search term. —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG, forks content, no sourcing, all plot summary. — chro • man • cer 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No out-of-universe notability. Unsourced OR plot. --Crusio (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not show notability, just plot. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and protect redirect - due to possibility of content migrating from the main article to the list article. --Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The individual fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. As stated in the nomination, it is an unneeded content fork of List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. As the article is completely unreferenced, all content is original research by synthesis at best, so nothing deserves to be merged. As pointed out in the nomination, due to the disambiguation in the article title, it is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not necessary. Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Im sorry I dont see how this could be a redirect, it can however be mentioned on the disamb page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2011 (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.