Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisto

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. Deletes have consensus, but there's no reason a 'merge' can't be done by mentioning of the name in the Space Ghost article if need be. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisto

Minor character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. — X S G 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom. — X S G 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional character with no real world notability established Corpx (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should something like this that cites absolutely no sources be merged somewhere? Corpx (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has at least one reference and thus that citation can be merged to The_Brak_Show#Characters or Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast#Characters per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Should every minor character from every work of fiction be created with a redirect to that fictional character's source? I don't think so; Sisto is so minor that I don't think it even warrants a redirect. — X S G 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a mention into Space Ghost, of consider creating a character in ... article and merging there. DGG (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that :) Corpx (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research is not appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting in AfDs, please be sure to 1) read the actual article under discussion and 2) look for sources per WP:BEFORE. Had you done either, you would see that the information is indeed verifiable and thus not original research. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wholeheartedly disagree. The article has only one statement sourced. The rest of it appears to constitute original research. I'll tag the article up with {{fact}}s if it'll help... — X S G 05:45, 12 July 2009 (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.