Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallus

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 Space Ghost (TV series). I can't find a list of characters to merge to, redirecting to the show's article. BJ^Talk 19:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metallus

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. — X S G 02:58, 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]

Note - A merge/redirect is the way of handling a situation where a character is notable but not deserving of its own article. In this case, the character is minor, appearing only in a few episodes of the subject's program, and does not warrant even a redirect. — X S G 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are complete incorrect. WP:NOTABILITY applies only to stand alone articles and does not control content in otherwise notable articles. Being verifiable is all this is required for inclusion within a large article. Also the existence of redirects from non-notable characters hurts nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please be so kind as to explain why WP:RCAT doesn't list this as a reasonable use of a redirect. To boot, WP:RCAT does list "People known solely in the context of one event", linking to WP:BLP1E with its main article at WP:N. From this, I discern that yes, indeed, it is Wikipedia policy to establish notability prior to utilizing a redirect. — X S G 04:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah. You're right. I've reviewed the "Too short for own article" entry, which indicates that redirects for non-notables is acceptable. Damnit. — X S G 04:29, 13 July 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-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 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Unreferenced. Google shows no noticeable signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a reoccurring character on a noble show. He was notable because unlike the fools they normally fought, he was the only one to figure out how their invisibility worked. He was also the most technologically oriented villain they faced. And he was a member of the council of Doom with other notable villains of the Space Ghost series. Dream Focus 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is based on unsourced original research, and provides no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 13 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.