Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Howe Monster


 * 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 Dark Horse Comic's.  MBisanz  talk 02:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Howe Monster

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the Godzilla comic through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- there is no call for an article on this creature because it has no significant real-world impact and devoting an article to it would be undue weight. None of the content is usable anywhere else because it is unsourced original research. Reyk  YO!  01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fictional creatures that only appear in 1 work (in this case 1 issue of 1 comic book) do not generally pass the criteria of WP:FICT nor WP:N, particularly without secondary sources to show notability. There are no sources here nor any assertion of notability, so it is unlikely that this could pass WP:V. The article is 100% plot summary and thus also fails WP:NOT. The fact that there has been no substantial improvement to the article since its creation 2 years ago (discounting minor edits and category changes) indicates that sufficient secondary source material to support an independent article likely does not exist. None of the content is mergeable elsewhere as it is entirely unreferenced and is just plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepand discuss possible merge at the proper place. No reason is given why merge is unsatisfactory. I totally agree it is not worth a stand-alone article. But material like this can be sourced from the work itself, & so there is no objection to merging. NOT PLOT is disputed policy, and in there is no agreement that it means anything more than that the total Wikipedia coverage of a fiction in general can not be entirely plot. And any article can potentially be improved. there is never a single case in Wikipedia where the last sentence of this deletion nomination is applicable. DGG (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was still is (I didn't notice as the "disputed" tag was taken off WP:NOT) disputed does not equate to a complete moratorium on everything currently on the block because of it. There is no consensus right now in changing it, and so it still needs to be followed. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole "NOT#PLOT is a disputed policy" argument is completely hollow, because every time the policy gets challenged it is overwhelmingly upheld. All the "disputes" over it in the last couple of years have not even resulted in a change in wording, so it clearly has widespread consensus. I can start a discussion on any policy talk page and justify placing a "disputed" tag on the policy, but that doesn't invalidate it. This article is nothing but plot summary, with zero references or real-world context, and there is not even an article on the comic book series from which it originates. Where there is no useful, referenced content, there can be nothing to merge, particularly when there is no merge target. I'm all in favor of merging in cases where there is information worth salvaging, but there is no such content here. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is consensus that NOT PLOT is necessary in some form--but there is not agreement is on what it should say--it has been changed, and changed back repeatedly. Current wording is" "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." I see the current wording as primarily inclusive: there must be coverage of the plot, and, it must be concise (but that's a relative term). There is nothing there specified to be excluded, only included. DGG (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge I think DGG has a point that a merge would have been a good first option. Clearly this isn't notable as a stand alone article. But would it be worth including some information in anotehr article at a level that is notable (and redirecting)? Probably. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this monster appears to be the major antagonist in this particular comic, I'd love to merge, but I'm not seeing a target article... - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The series is dealt with here: Godzilla (comics). (Emperor (talk) 16:10, 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.