Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocomaro

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 redirect to Mashimaro. The consensus here is that most of the content in this article is duplicated in Mashimaro, so a merge in this instance is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chocomaro

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 and has had a {{context}} tag for almost its entire existence. It looks to be about a character from undiscernable Korean cartoon, but I haven't been able to find more online other than some YouTube videos and reposting sites. From what I've been able to find, this character(?) has little if any notability. Another editor posted on the talk page, "...what's already written pretty much says everything about Chocomaro, and there's virtually nothing to clean up." If there's little possibility of expansion, cleanup, or clarification, the article really doesn't meet the requirements for being encyclopedic. If someone can actually make sense of this article, clean it up, and provide sources and indications of notability, more power to them, but as it stands I see no reason why it should not be deleted. Agent 86 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This looks like a character introduced for a couple of episodes and that's it. There's no coverage that I an find. There may be some in Korean, but I haven't a clue where it might be found. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Mashimaro since it's essentially just a character from that series, although I do notice that that article is in desperate need of cleaning as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect per tokyogirl79. Pburka (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. With no third-party sources, I do not believe that a merge is justified or that there is a strong-enough association to justify a redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a redirect is problematic as there would be no indication why one landed at the mashimoro article. Based on the article, this would appear to be a very minor character that might not even make it on to a chacter list article. - Whpq (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the (short) Mashimaro article already includes a paragraph about Chocomaro. It seems like a reasonable redirect to me. Pburka (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - REDIRECT Thanks for pointing out my goof. It's unsourced, but probably verifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as suggested. The relevant content in the redirect target is essentially the same as in this article, so no need to merge. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:46, 4 November 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.