Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno J. Global


 * 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   merge to List of Macross characters. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruno J. Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This fictional character has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and hence fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability Requirements; thus this subject does not merit an article of its own. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added two independent secondary sources (including one in a media theory print book) to address the concerns above. 1-54-24 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Those sources talk about a completely different topic, namely Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water. Captain Global and another "Captain" from another story are mentioned in passing in them... and when I say mentioned, it means no significant coverage. I hate to say this but Wikipedia is supposed to an Encyclopedia not Trash-pedia. But if you wish to see some very good articles about notable characters and learn how to create similar things, visit these: Cloud Strife, Dante (Devil May Cry), Samus Aran and Mario.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Macross characters unless someone can find more significant third-party coverage than the two trivial mentions already cited. When dealing with non-notable character articles, especially if they are about major characters of a highly notable series, it is always best to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. The list itself should be split along the different series and renamed to List of Super Dimension Fortress Macross characters. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a valid and acceptable course of action. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major character in a notable series, featured in the television series, movies, comic books, and toys. And out of all the characters on the list, why only nominate the leaders of the two sides?    D r e a m Focus  00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection. Notability is NOT inherited. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Really?! Did I do that? I didn't notice. All I saw was lack of eligibility in Wikipedia. How comes lead characters have so shabby articles? Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Macross characters per Farix. The few bits of real-world information in the character's article are a start, but it's not enough to justify a separate article at this point, and it also reads rather OR-ish. – sgeureka t•c 09:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Farix's proposal, based on that reasoning. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Farix. Lack of third party sources makes it impossible to WP:verify notability but merge is a fair compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge There's no reason these should have been AfD'd in the first place. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really so, Kraftlos? But my friend, per my experiences, saying such things is infinitely easier than doing them. Fleet Command (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't use XfD to push for action to be taken, if you thought a merge was in order then you should've started that process instead. I've done mass merges with at least twenty different lists, so I know from experience it can be done farily easily.  It's just time consuming.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not always the case, Kraftlos. Articles about fiction are particularly more frequently visited by like-minded fans who hold their subject very dear; AfDs however, are nearly always attended by more neutral-minded people who uphold Wikipedia values. It is not only I that thinks so: Some people in Wikipedia had once proposed AfD to be renamed to Articles for Discussion intead of Article for Deletion. Believe it or not, AfDs are sometimes better solutions. (I can link to examples if you wish.) Besides, I didn't proposed this article for merger; I proposed it for deletion: I came here because I wanted it to go. However, I am open to valid alternative suggestions and it would have been very rude not to affirm Farix's suggestion after I objected 1-54-24. Right now, I'll be more happy to see this article deleted; although I respect the general consensus for merger. But again, I don't see why would you think AfD was no necessary. Fleet Command (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and push for early close AfD Nom has stated to merge: "Agreed. It is a valid and acceptable course of action" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't spam the AfD. See Arguments to avoid in deletioniscussions → Per nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is spamming? I am just quoting what you said about a merge. If you are against a merge then why would you say that in response? Delete per nom is usually a vote because it just agrees with someone elses statement in the example provided. Since you are the person who wanted this deleted but you had stated that a merge is "acceptable" I pushed for an early close in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.