Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taa II

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

No citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to establish notability, or even a claim of notability. Does not offer any sources to offer real-world perspective (development, critical reaction, etc.) User:TheBalance seems to have ownership issue be twice undoing redirect without offering any reliable sources or responding to underlying content issues. --EEMIV (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge any useful info to Galactus (most of it's there already) and Redirect there. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::My issue was your deletion of the article without discussion. You acted unilaterally even though the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. TheBalance (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::It wasn't deleted, it was redirected. A redirect keeps the article history in the database but sends the reader to a related article when they arrive at the page. A deletion removes the article from the database altogether and readers see a "create this page" message. Redirection is a vaild tool in an editor's toolbox and does not amount to deletion, therefore an article does not have to meet the criteria for speedy deletion if an editor simply wants to remove all the information from that particular page and instead redirect readers to a similar page where they believe most of the information can be found. On Wikipedia, per the editing policy, the information is what is important, not the page where it is located. Personally, it makes little difference to me where this article lies. However, it can be verified that the character exists, it is possible to write neutrally about the character and utilising primary source to do so would not infringe upon WP:OR. Notability is a subjective factor regardless of the claims the guidance page seeks to make, per WP:NOPE, and doesn't really help us in our purpose. I think if we have information on the character in an article, it perhaps should be in the article that bears that character's name, but that's just my personal preference. It seems to me that would be most advantageous for readers, and we must remember we are here for our readers. Wikipedia's purpose is to be the best reference point for all, not some. I do not see it as within an editor's remit to dictate which portions of our readership we should dictate too regarding content, so far as such content meets our foundation principle of being written from a neutral point of view. Hiding T 12:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per Hiding's excellent essay (WP:NOPE), and everything he said in the last few sentences of his comment above. Failing that, I propose to restore the redirect to Galactus. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There is information in this article that is not on the Galactus main page. Additionally I first learned about Taa II by looking up its entry here in wikipedia, subsequently doing my own further research, and then ultimately contributing to the article itself. As has been mentioned, many people, including myself, use wikipedia to research fictional topics and content.Mobb One (talk) 07:04, 27 July 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.