Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowkhan

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 Jackie Chan Adventures. Xy7 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowkhan

This is a non-notable race from a cartoon series that has absolutely no real world importance outside of the piece of fiction. It is already covered within the other articles of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom; article shows no material real world content and nom mentions coverage sufficient in other articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has no real world importance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ the topic is not notable enough to justify more than a brief mention in the parent article. Same ilk as the Putties from Power Rangers, or the Foot Clan from Ninja Turtles. -Verdatum (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect DGG is right, redirects are cheap, and the name is original enough that there is no ambiguity on the origin. -Verdatum (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Verdatum. I would possibly think about redirecting but this honestly doesn't seem like something people would look up. JuJube (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if its mentioned in the article, and a part of the fiction, and has a distinctive name, people presumably will look it up. Redirects are cheap. DGG (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Protected redirect. I'll buy DGG's argument about a search term, but leaving unprotected redirects laying around invites edit warring with fans that attempt to resurrect them.Kww (talk) 03:04, 20 September 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.