Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molga

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 merge to list of Zoids. SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molga

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability and a vehicle for unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Zoids. There's clearly too much plot details. But a lack of sources doesn't mean it's unverifiable. It means it's unverified. I cursory glance on Google would easily find enough information to merge a basic stub into a list. (If it's already there, it should be redirected so people actually find it). -Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after discussion on the appropriate talk page, as none of the reason given would apply if the content or a suitable part of it were merged into a combination article on these weapons, or at least redirected, there is no case for outright deletion. I note the nominator never even tried to suggest a merge in the proper place, and his repeated insistence on bringing these here seems POINTY. I further note that he has taken account of this, on a recent posting on his talk page[1], and has started redirecting without discussion, something for which he was previously blocked, with the declared intention of going to afd if the merges are reverted. The way of dealing with disputed merges is dispute resolution, not afd, and this nomination, along with all of the similar ones for mergeable/redirectable content, is an abuse of deletion process. He has his own view of what is appropriate content, and apparently intends to try every possible route to bring this about. DGG (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mgm, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 15 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.