Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Kung Lao

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 Kung Lao. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Kung Lao

Originally proposed to merge this into Kung Lao, but closer examination indicates the character is even more minor than it originally looked. Google test seems to indicate the same, with "Great Kung Lao" giving only 587 hits. Deletion seems to be the better option for the subject. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge Yes it's minor but a sentence or two and a redirect would take care of it perfectly well. It's a possible search term, so there should certainly be a redirect. DGG (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kung Lao. The Mortal Kombat novel by Jeff Rovin has this character play a major role, though that is a primary source; I'm not aware of any secondary sources or reviews of that book. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The two are ancestor and descendant, and a short section in the Kung Lao article would enough for his ancestor. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and tag with template:afd-mergeto), since there might be some reliable third-party coverage out there, but it hasn't been found yet. A short summary would suffice in the meantime without violating WP:V. Randomran (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible. Not enough content to justify a separate article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 28 September 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.