Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephantus

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. The "merge" opinions do not address the content problems identified in the discussion (unverifiable, OR etc.), which would not go away with a merge. Sandstein 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantus

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really enjoy this or something? I would think it would be clear by now that none of these things has any notability independent of the broader subject. Just merge them already, all these AfDs on the same subject are tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to merge. The most that can be said is "This is a large, robotic *animal* with *some array of weapons*". That is absolutely useless, especially because there are hundreds of them. Deletion is the best way to handle these. TTN (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about merging, but what about just redirecting these instead of having 5 days of pointless debate before that's what happens anyway? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I redirect fifty articles, there is a very good likelihood that anons will quickly revert them. Articles like these are also often slowly resurrected over time, so having an AfD to back any deletions or redirects is helpful. TTN (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make to big a deal out of this, as we are basically on the same side here, but have you ever considered a group nom to sweep all these up at once, since they are all essentially the same? That would settle the matter a lot quicker and easier. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one successful nomination of ten of these, but I have also had an unsuccessful group nomination with another series recently. I want to avoid that happening again, so I try to use large nominations sparsely. TTN (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find masses of single deletions more disruptive than one single one. A group nom, will back up redirect or merge outcomes just as well as single noms. Also, I'd like to point out that if there is a consensus to merge or redirect and someone undoes the resulting redirect against consensus, I personally would be happy to use protection to enforce it, so deleting an otherwise useful redirect isn't the only option. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Someone unfamiliar with Zoids may come around wanting to know more, so we could at least put a short piece on the Zoids page, unless this is an uncommon mecha in the series. Perhaps we should merge them all into a Zoids (mecha) page. Tealwisp (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is no sign of notability in the articleMrathel (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge is unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge according to whatever is decided at the talk page of the article. That's the place for this discussion. Redirect and delete are edits. If one cannot get consent for the edit one wants, & thinks the opponents unreasonable, one does not instead try to delete the article, one pursues dispute resolution. To try to delete because one might just possibly not get consent, that is really an abuse of process. I could equally say, I think the article on X is non-neutral, and possibly I might not get consent to edit it the way I think appropriate, so let's delete it first, before I even try. (And in particular, this and the closely related articles for similar weapons are ones which almost nobody will defend as individual articles, and there should be no problem at all getting consensus for a suitable merge or possibly a redirect.) Nominating individually rather than in small groups, or vice versa, is not inherently an abuse, since indeed both can be equally objected to--TTN is certainly right about that point. What is wrong though is trying to force one';s own interpretation of what is appropriate content by mass deletion requests whether individually or in groups. All these instances where redirects would serve are improper nominations against Deletion policy, unless it can be shown why they would not serve. The only proper course here is to suggest redirecting or merging the articles. I think it'll work where its justified, and not where it isn't. . DGG (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly idiosyncratic and motivated view of AfD, David. Presenting articles for consideration at AfD invites wider participation regardless of the outcome and can hardly be considered an abuse of process, unless demonstrably a WP:POINT violation, which is hardly the case here, I think. In fact, I think TTN is doing solid work by building up a large body of AfD precedent for merge/redirect/deletions of this type of article. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I said above, I have to admit I'm impressed by his patience and determination to solve this piece by piece. A lot of folks would have given up in the face of such a stack of, well I guess we'll call it "Zoidcruft". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is over-reliant on an in universe perspective, so even if its content did not fail WP:V, it would still not be possible to write an encyclopedic ariticle, because the only information is plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Gavin. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2008 (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.