Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong (Toho)

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 redirect to King_Kong#Other_appearances. Tone 16:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (Toho)

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

I wanted to WP:D-R this one, but since there have been several other times editors have tried this and been reverted, I thought it best to bring this a discussion. The inherent problem here is the idea that this King Kong is different from the "real" one, which seems like kaiju WP:FANPOV and others who have tried redirecting this article. The Toho creature is really just an interpretation of the King Kong character, not a separate one that happens to have the same name and a similar appearance. There are plenty of interpretations of King Kong that don't merit their own articles.

I would like to redirect this article to King Kong#King Kong (Toho). I don't think it's necessary to merge, but this will preserve the page history if anyone is interested in performing one. --BDD (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does an alternative version of a fictional character merit its own page? For instance, there is an entry for alternative versions of Spiderman, so by what criteria does this not merit its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwhoopie17 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The redirect target seems to cover the material quite adequately. There is the additional problem with the sources. All of the sources cited (a couple are dead links) fail WP:RS. So any new materail fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as duplicate material that can be covered in other articles. Even though it could be expanded and RS sources exist (primarily about the films), the text is almost the same as that in King Kong, and additional material could equally go in King Kong vs. Godzilla, which already has a very detailed production section. Lead characters who've been in 1 or 2 films don't automatically get a separate article, unless there's too much material for the article on the film/series. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For the same reasons stated above. Its simply regurgitated text from the King Kong (Toho) section from the King Kong article. There is a redundancy to having that text copied into a separate page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (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.