Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talon (Static Shock)


 * 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 Static Shock.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Talon (Static Shock)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Static Shock 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) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If someone digs up sources and prunes let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Immediatism is not a valid reason for deletion. The AFD page says so quite clearly. A reasonable effort should be made to show sources do not exist before nominating something for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
 * "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
 * "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
 * "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
 * "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep same reasons as for all the similar nomination--redirect and merge are considered elsewhere. A deletion nomination for something potentially mergable or redirectable without explaining or even asserting the inappropriateness of such is an abuse of deletion process, regardless of the subject. DGG (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 4 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.