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. Unsourced, no amount of hand waving can save this Black Kite 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe)

[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted to List of Masters of the Universe characters

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly original research. Pcap ping 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original research has been eliminated. Was there another reason for you to wish to delete this? Dream Focus 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in some books [1] and two news articles that are behind a paywall so I can't read what they actually said about the character. But I found this: [2] the character getting notable mention in a top 10 list, for one of the lamest fictional ninjas of all time. An actor played Ninjor in the very notable Macy Thanksgiving Day parade. That's two sites listed as reliable sources, and used in many other Wikipedia articles, that give coverage of the character. I edited out all the original research nonsense that should've gone on the talk page, not in the main article. If someone claims to have come up with the character, discuss it on the talk page, and find some news media mentioning this. Dream Focus 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again toy directories do nothing to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of sources presented. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you are familiar with the idea that of circular arguements. "Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia" WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was mentioning the sources presented by me in the post above him. The Macy Thanksgiving Day parade of 1985 happened before Wikipedia even existed. Dream Focus 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character added to the toy line after the cartoon ended. No notability independent of the franchise. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. All book mentions, as linked above, are merely price guides valuing the toy. Sarilox (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect as sufficiently notable due to verifiability through reliable sources. Subject is from a mainstream franchise for which we can view images of him in both comic and action figure format online. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no valid or objective reason exists for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:26, 22 February 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.