Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-Breed

:{{la|Meta-Breed}} ([{{fullurl:Meta-Breed|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-Breed}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This fictional group 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) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Static Shock. Not independently notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Static Shock and merge anything that can be verified. May not be independently notable, but makes for a reasonable search term so a redirect is in order.- Mgm|^(talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• keep appropriate combination article. Nominating combination articles is an attempt to remove coverage entirely. There is no policy that notability be independent of the work. I do not see significant OR, and if there is ithe article can be edited. Who's to say how much plot summary is too much. No assertion is made by the nominator that sources cannot be found. And the last sentence of the nomination is meaningless--so much so that the nominator has never been able to paraphrase it or explain. DGG (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Real world context is required to establish notability of all fictional things. It's not too much plot, it's the lack of real world context. TTN's last statement is that the editors of the article show no interest in having any information beyond plot added to the article. Combining non-notable things does not suddenly make a notable topic, being a combination article is meaningless, they are held to the same standards as other articles. Jay32183 (talk) 08:22, 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) 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "TTN's last statement is that the editors of the article show no interest in having any information beyond plot added to the article." Jay, that does clarify things about "no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." Now I know what to respond to: Why is the current lack of interest in working on an article an indication that it should be deleted? The current lack of work is a reason why it should be worked on. If the original creators have lost interest, others can step in. Much good Wikipedia articles have been worked on my many different people, often after an orginal ed. or group lost interest in it, or, as may be the case for some of the more naive articles here, did what they could. It's against deletion policy to delete fixable articles. So unless it asserts they can never be fixed., such as by showing no references do exist and none ever will , the argument is always irrelevant. We delete for unsourcable, not unsourced. All articles using that argument need review, is case anyone was impressed by this attempt to obscurely state the wrong policy. Before I start on that, does TTN confirm that what Jay said is what he means?DGG (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• It's not in itself a call for deletion, it's actually a preemptive argument against "It's a proper use of WP:SS". People inappropriately use summary style as an excuse to keep anything, which is quite annoying since summary style says not to do that, WP:AVOIDSPLIT. TTN's last bit isn't the deletion reason, it's the counter to the most probable keep reason. At least that's how I take it. Right or wrong, it is not a reason to review all the articles TTN has nominated for deletion in the past. Jay32183 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I continue to like to hear what he himself meant by it; I see no mention of splitting or summary style in that phrase. What you say, however, may be on some occasions a valid argument about preemptive splitting--and, like discussions to merge, a subject for talk page discussion. DGG (talk) 23:14, 6 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.