Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahito (Galactik Football)

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 Galactik Football - for the time being. A merge to a List of characters in Galactik Football would not be unreasonable, but the articles as they stand are generally completely unsourced and fail WP:N and WP:V (not to mention WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT). Black Kite 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahito (Galactik Football)

These characters do not establish notability independent of Galactik Football through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of their information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the articles, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail on the characters. TTN (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all If you're saying that one or more of the articles contains sources, and that the nominator is incorrect in saying otherwise, you're welcome to point out which articles have sources. On the other hand, if you're saying that nominators have an obligation to source someone else's article, then let me be the first to say that "No, they don't." Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't, but they do have to establish the article is unsalvagable or give someone else the chance to fix it without forcing a deadline. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if it's evident that someone is making a good faith effort to fix things, the debate stays open longer. A closing admin has the discretion to hold off on a ruling. This is particularly true in cases where the today's article is noticeably different from the one that was nominated, because the reasons originally given may no longer apply. I'm all in favor of saying "wait" (or in '08, saying "oh, wait!") when someone is trying to make things better. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging if the notability is borderline for the individual characters, as would seem likely, but this is not the place to discuss merges. One should not assert something cannot be referenced or improved without giving some basis for that. I note we do not delete for unsourced, just unsourcable, so saying something currently has no sources for notability is not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Original research, plain and simple. Other than The Snow Kids, none of these articles has any sources at all, and those on the Snow Kids fail WP:RS easily. It is for those seeking content to be included to provide sources and verify it, not for those seeking it to be deleted to prove that none exist. See WP:BURDEN. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.