Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blast-Attak

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 Masters of the Universe characters. No 3rd party significant coverage, could easily have closed this as delete but since there's an easy merge target, let's do that. Black Kite 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blast-Attak

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary .

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verifiability. As nominator suggests, we have a valid merge and redirect location. Thus, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better in even the worst case scenario we would redirect with edit history intact an article concerning a notable character. We would be doing our diverse readership a disservice by outright redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters to annihilate pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per dgg, in the alternative, merge. Okip 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Dwanyewest and JBSupreme. This article has no reliable secondary sources to back it up, consists mostly of plot summary and trivia. There should not be an article without any reliable secondary sources- nor should unsourced material be shovelled into another article, even if you can find a suitable target. There is nothing to be done with this material except to get rid of it. Reyk _YO! 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue many people who seem to defend articles like this always seem to ignore a basic principle which I have said in another article. Many inclusionist seem to ignore "The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." Dwanyewest (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You link to someone's personal essay, just the opinion of whoever wrote it. Just as many essays will say the opposite. WP:V matters, and its requirements are met for this article, WP:ENN is meaningless, and nothing said there has any authority in an AFD. Dream Focus 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mention in one news source, when I click Google news source, the full article behind a pay wall unfortunately. The Google book search shows it listed among other notable toys. Nothing gained by deleting the article, so let it be. Dream Focus 05:21, 25 February 2010 (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.