Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muros (Encantadia)


 * 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 Encantadia. Lacks evidence of separate notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Muros (Encantadia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think that it's necessary for an article to have a cultural impact if it's literally a piece of the culture itself. This article is creating a more in depth understanding of the story line it comes from, and adding that information to Wikipedia --regardless of it's cultural significance-- seems appropriate to me. The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant. Keep, because it is a good piece of information, even if it is rather insignificant, to have in the Wikipedia database. BluePankow   ✉  14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The following parts, "it is a good piece of information" and "The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant", are not good "keep" arguments. I would recommend instead finding coverage of the character in third-party, reliable sources to prove notability to make a stronger argument to keep the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Encantadia as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support notability. It could be a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better and more helpful than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Encantadia Fails WP:GNG to become an independent article. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (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.