Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomess

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 Ultra Monsters#Ultra Q. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gomess

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Appears in a few episodes but I can find no reliable sources, and there isn't any sourcing at the Wikia page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to it failing to establish notability and unlikelihood of anything being found to accomplish that. TTN (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultra Monsters#Ultra Q. Possible search term (per WP stats, the page is actually visited about 2500/3000 times a year) and redirects are cheap. Cavarrone 05:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect I can't myself determine if it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 September 2013 (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.