Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ultraman Nexus monsters

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 speedy delete, copyvio. Peter 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Nexus monsters

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

Minor component of fictional work. Unsourced. In-universe style. Listcruft. John Nagle (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with all of the above. JIP | Talk 06:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is poorly written and in universe but has potential. --Tmckeage (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- sourceless, in-universe listcruft. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. No indication that anyone has tried and failed to source it. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to source it, and succeeded, so speedy delete G12 as copyvio of [1], so tagged. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. It's a word for word copy of [2]. Embarrassing. --John Nagle (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (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.