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 Keep, as there is no consensus to delete. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactor[edit]

There are no references from Gatchaman DVDs, books or reliable websites with information relating to Galactor. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator: Is your complaint that the article is unreferenced or that the subject is not notable? The way it's phrased seems to be the former. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to suggest are no references are being to used to support statements written in the article. I am not suggest the article is not notable all I am trying to say is that references be used to support statements. At present there are none. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest letting the need-more-references tag be allowed time to actually, yanno, work. Also, the relevant wikiproject has a new Cleanup Task Force that can be called in to help. I've added the article to the list of things to deal with. (Personally, I think this should be merged into either the main Gatchaman article or a list of characters, but the whole suite of articles needs a good looking at and reorganization, which usually goes better when not under the gun of a five-day deadline.) —Quasirandom (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Galactor is to be merged into Science Ninja Team Gatchaman the Science Ninja Team Gatchaman and its associated articles need major clean ups too there is a lack of reliable sources been used. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science Ninja Team Gatchaman does have a dearth of references, yes, but it has enough to verify its existence and basic facts, and justify its independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orange tag post on that article specifies it have many problem. main thing is the source. Try to find at least 10 off Wiki sources.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge (the concept), or redirect to Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:WAF and does not establish WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I want to recommend is merge to List of Science Ninja Team Gatchaman characters, but there is no list of characters in the article to use as the basis of it. Indeed, the very brief blurbage that exists doesn't even give enough context for what the show's about, an omision that results in an undue weight being given to the (important and notable) information about various adaptations. Hmm. Will continue to ponder for the remaining day of debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so that it can be cleaned up/merged as necessary. Having problems like inadequate sourcing is not grounds for deletion. Gimme danger (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Gimme danger where are the sources provided to prove notablity I am not questioning notabiliy if its so notable I wish sources would be provided as soon as possible. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as is better within context of the series, otherwise only iseful for fans. Although AfD is not clean-up!Yobmod (talk) 14:29, 3 July 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.