Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration Unit Zeta

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. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration Unit Zeta

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it seems appropriate to use some of the material in this article as the basis for a new section in The Zeta Project article on the main character. Jeremiah (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_work 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main character in a notable series (if only just notable) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason for the character to have an article. Notability is not inherited from the parent topic. It has to be established on its own using reliable third party sources. TTN (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered in third party sources. No sources cited. No context provided for the reader (I certainly can't tell from the lede what this is or what shows it was on). Zero Gnews hits (all dates archive search). Web searches are primarily fansites and mirrors. No book hits. Can't see a reason to keep it. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 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.