Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Kong


 * 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 Gojulas Giga.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Kong

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   08:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Zoids and merge whatever in there is sourced and worthwhile. --fvw *  09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per discussion about Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Notability outside of Zoids not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (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.