Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Lord Kuzon

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 delete. Singularity 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Lord Kuzon

Fire Lord Kuzon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to fail WP:FICT as it does not have secondary sources and is a rumor inside a fictional world. Hell, we don't allow unsourced rumors anywhere else... spryde | talk 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:FICTION, per nominator. Bláthnaid 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete - can't even tell what it's about. Fails WP:FICT... unless it's someone's hallucination.. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• It relates to to Avatar: The Last Airbender, though exactly where in the suite of articles this belongs isn't immediately obvious. Pending someone familiar with the show suggesting elsewhere, I say merge per WP:FICT, with heavy editing to remove the original research, into List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. On further consideration, delete on WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL grounds, but without prejudice pending revelations in later episodes. —Quasirandom 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete good grief. Decoratrix 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Virtually no context, and completely opaque as to what this is about. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:52, 14 November 2007 (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.