Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transformers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transformer related articles current up for deletion.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Transformers. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transformers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transformers. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.



Purge page cache watch

Transformers

[edit]
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. (Non-admin closure.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximal (Transformers)

[edit]
Maximal (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional group of characters. PROD removed after two "sources" added, but these sources only appear to source the plot summary of the show the group appeared in. If they actually discuss the characters, then that needs to be stated.

Also, I'm a little confused how the sources come from Page 871 of a 528 page book and from Page 321 of a 316 page book. I'm not saying the editor made these up but it needs to be clear what these sources are because the article has nothing else to pass notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books comes up with different page numbers than amazon.uk. For instance, the Television Encycloedia has 1038 pages. http://books.google.com/books?id=q4UjAQAAIAAJ&q=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&dq=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&hl=en&ei=KUk7TprhL42BsgKM8pHrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA Maybe it's a different edition? Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thr article is properly sourced in several 3rd party books. It's linked to by numerous articles on Wikipedia, so it's useful as a link, and i don't see how the nominator thinks deleting it would help wikipedia in any way. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The usual Transformers fancruft, weakly attempted sourcing made to toy encyclopedia and guides and fan books doesn't cut it. There are Wikia pages for this stuff...we keep the truly notable ones...Megatron, Optimus, etc...they get the rest. It is tiring to have the same arguments over the same fucking nonsense over and over and over and over. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**The above vote carries no weight at all. It is just a textbook example of WP:ITSCRUFT, not to mention the obvious immaturity of someone who has it out for the GB and Trans community. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - This editor is a blocked sock puppeteer whose opinion should probably be ignored in this debate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I don't understand the logic here, a lot of Transformers articles got deleted/redirected to "List of Maximals", so Maximal was important then, but a simple article explaining what a Maximal exactly is "non notable"? That's like having a list of Star Trek characters, but failing to say what Star Trek is! Mathewignash (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep", This article is describing a prominent faction in two very popular television shows and multiple toy lines that ran for several years, are significant to the history of one of the largest toy/television franchises of all time (fast becoming one of the most successful film franchises as well) and are significant to television in general as one of the first wildly successful computer-animated programs. Yes, there's a Transformers Wiki, but if Wikipedia had a policy against duplicating any information that can be found elsewhere then any articles with citations would be deleted instantly instead of it being the other way around. In addition, this is a small page that gives supplementary information on a topic many people (the Transformers fandom is huge and historically significant) find interesting. This is NOT a massive description of every character and their entire backstory. For THAT, you can go to the Transformers wiki because that level of detail WOULD go beyond what Wikipedia is for. Describing a faction in a massive franchise and listing the members thereof does not. Now, from a simple formatting perspective, it also makes sense to give this it's own page. The articles that link to this and the Predacon page (which is far larger) are already VERY LARGE articles. This information is needed, but placing this fictional-universe-significant but not real-world-significant information in the main articles would unnecessarily lengthen them for people uninterested in the fiction. This seems to be a simple case of "Why do people like things I don't like?", which is not grounds for deletion. You've given no good reason for a lack of notability that hasn't been adressed. Transformers is not the only fictional series with articles describing it's factions and it is certainly not the smallest or least notable. If you suggested merging this article with the "autobot" page, that would be more acceptable, but proposing deletion of notable information that can't be found elsewhere on the encyclopedia is ridiculous.99.49.4.226 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His points are completely valid though. There are a total of FOUR major factions in the Transformers stories. Autobot, Decepticons, Maximals and Predacons. All are equally notable. Deleting one is, without trying to be insulting, stupid. Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His points are utter nonsense. When determining notability of fictional material, we don't care about the nerdcruft of what factions are the important ones in-universe. (Please make special note of the in there). You are either unaware of or purposefully ignore our notaiblity guidelines and our need for sucvh to be reliably sourced and it is getting quite tiring to explain this to you in every damn AfD. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop commenting in Afds... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe not a paragon of great editing, but the group described in the article were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges. Wouldn't that put them on par with the notability of fictional groupings such as Syndicate (The X-Files), Dharma Initiative or the Bookhouse Boys? I'll admit that I do have an inclusionist view on things, but I don't believe that because an article contains a lot of cruft, its subject is inherently cruft in and of itself. There's a notable subject to be discussed in there, just so happens that it hasn't been done right yet. Deletion wouldn't solve the actual problem, it'd be cutting off a hand because your nails are dirty. GRAPPLE X 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another largely invalid vote that rests on "they're important in-universe" and WP:OTHERCRAP. The Dharma stuff is extensively covered by outside reliable sources; an article for that is a no-brainer. X-Files is debatable, lots of sources but mostly in-house. Finally, I am a rabid Twin Peaks fan and even I didn't know there was a separate article for the Bookhouse Boys, that's a little ridiculous and should be deleted or redirected promptly. We need reliable sources independent of the subject to justify an article. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with your attitude to this at all. Yes, articles need reliable sources. However, deleting those without them included simply acts as a barrier towards adding them in future. Articles needing additional sources should be maintenance tagged as such, not culled with the mindset of "not sourced, can't keep it". And I take issue with you deciding my vote is invalid just because you don't agree with my reasoning. GRAPPLE X 21:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really care what you think about my attitude; I argue based on established editing policy and guideline, while you rely on variations of "I like it" and vague hand-waving at "oh, there must be sources out there somewhere". These are not acceptable arguments to make at an AfD. If you can't source something, then it does not get an article. Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realise I had to start hauling citations along with me just to be able to register a valid vote, but five minutes with Google has turned up a brief summary of the reception toward the relevant shows, an official 'sourcebook', an overview of the series with reference to the group (and the mention of a DVD featurette which I assume would include production details), and a third-party retrospective. No, I'm not going to track these down, pay for them, and use them for the article. Someone who edits it regularly can if they so choose. Does my vote get to be 'valid' yet? GRAPPLE X 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not lie Tarc. Grapple said "were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges" and you say he's arguing that "they're important in-universe" The television series and merchandizing range are REAL WORLD, not "in fiction". Your lies will NOT be allowed to stand. Mathewignash (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people liars, as you've done here and at another AfD, for disagreeing with you is not acceptable. Neither is canvassing for keep votes. Reyk YO! 22:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see how it's inappropriate if it's the truth, Tarc is trying to change the subject to get his way. Grapple commented on "real world" facts and Tarc yelled at him for making "in fiction" remarks. That's a flat out lie in order to try to discount his comments. As for "canvasing", I was neutral in my point of view, and merely informed him that a similar nomination to the one he already voiced his opinion was going on. Mathewignash (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't contact any of the other participants in the discussion, or people who have commented in others. You singled out the Colonel because you know he'll vote "keep". Reyk YO! 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathewignash is calling a spade a spade. Because no valid reason exists for deletion, Tarc will just say anything to try to get his/her way, rather than, you know, actually contribute something useful to improve this or any article. No, s/he is more interested in name-calling, swearing, haranguing everyone who disagrees with him/her. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE - You may notice the two additional sources added from wired.com and usatoday. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your feel for what it means for something to be "reliably sourced" is off the mark. Wired rattled off a list of bad Transformers, noting that one is a Maximal with the line "The Beast Wars series recast Autobots and Decepticons as the more organic Maximals and Predacons." That is it. The USA Today link mentions the word "Maximal" twice in the course of an interview about Beat Wars. You can't just google the term and pluck out every casual mention and declare "yep, reliably sourced!" Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion of reliable is what's off the mark. They are entirely reliable sources third party sources. Length source doesn't make it unreliable. 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    I think we're at the point where you have a very simple but quite serious problem with competence. We need reliable sources that actually discuss the subject matter, i.e. a source about the Maximals. Not a tech magazine that uses the word once to talk about an example of a bad Transformer within a list of 12 bad Transfrmers. Not an interview in a newspaper where the interviewee mentions the name when talking about Beast Wars. Do you understand this? Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone here is demonstrating "Bias-based incompetence" it's you with your constant belittling attacks on a whole subject, and your constant personal attacks on other editors. [[1]] BTW, it would be nice if you let editors post opinions on the deletion review without remarking that every one that disagrees with you should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it the answer to my last question there is a resounding "no" ? The Wikipedia has thresholds to meet for reliability and sourcing, They are not black and white or set in stone,m there is always allowance for wiggle room, but no common sense interpretation of our guidelines alows for this tripe to exist in the Wikipedia. Mathewignash, how many AfDs have you been on the losing end of? How many of these discussions wind up exactly the same, as you being frustrated and simply refusing to listen to people who show you how these toys do not meet pour guidelines? Honestly, we could cut and paste these back-and-forths from anyone of the last 100-odd Transformers AfDs. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by making an argument here that has failed 100 times before? Tarc (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to make any actual coherent argument... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They must be pretty coherent if I've been able to see to it that dozens upon dozens of this junk has been deleted over the last year, eh? BTW, what account has you edited under previous to this IP? Tarc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably A Nobody. Reyk YO! 04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was torn on this at first, because I felt that simply having few sources would mean that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, and would be better off being merged. However, in reviewing the WP:Notability guideline, I found this, under WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Considering the level of attention this series and also specifically these Maximals have gotten, it is certainly not a trivial thing, but quite extensive from what I can tell. Not all notability is conferred by the same means. We won't always have scholarly papers or extensive news stories, but clearly this has received enough attention that it clearly is notable. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is close to the line, but I believe the issue is that the article is written in in-universe style. If rewritten in the sense of impact on the real world, I believe the concept would pass it. The point is that these are the main characters of a reasonably successful series: Beast Wars, Beast Wars II, Beast Wars Neo, Beast Wars: The Gathering. I think we should have articles on them the same way we have articles on the main characters of other reasonably successful series, such as television shows, books, or games. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the series, all Maximals are considered to be distinct descendants of their Autobot forebears. Although no indication is made of what precisely this entails, it still makes them quite unique in the Transformers universe. Moreover, between Beast Wars and Beast Machines, these characters lasted for 5 seasons, which is only a few episodes shy of the original series. Since the lead protagonists in the original series have maintained their own page, why not these?--Factchk (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (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.
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 speedy keep. The nominator is not asking for deletion, but to change the article to a redirect. -- Atama頭 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Omnicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not really voting delete. Previous AfD said "There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination". Hoping to get better consensus or something this time.I vote to redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons with the page history intact, so that any content that might deserve moving can be moved. NotARealWord (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, the nominator himself admits he doesn't want it deleted, so why is there a deletion nomination at all? If the nominator wants it to be redirected, then propose a redirection, and if no one objects, impliment it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no knowledge or interest in your gender, just the incorrect use of a deletion review. If you want an article redirected, you propose that. Deletion reviews are NOT to be used to strongarm an article into redirecting. Mathewignash (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (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.
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 Stunticons. Clearly no consensus to keep, and while Stunticons isn't suggested below as a target, it seems to me to the be correct place, and I don't think there's anything notable here to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Strip

[edit]
Drag Strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not assert independent notability. TTN (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, either to Dragstrip or List of Decepticons. Powers T 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence or assertion of non-notability as the term is at least worthy of an article in the racing sense as confirmed by Google News and Google books. The character is also a toy from a notable show that you even look at pictures of online, i.e. no reason why we would redlink, maybe merge and redirect, maybe improve, but not redlink. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term you get results for is drag strip (or dragstrip), not capitalized Drag Strip. The sources you find in Google News and Google Books are not about the Transformers[2][3]. I have no idea what you mean with "assertion of non-notability", of course the article will not say that the subject is not notable, but that is so utterly not the point of the JNN essay that I feel to see why you bring it up here.
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip. The current subject of the article is not notable, but the title of the article is a plausible search term for unrelated content. Fram (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current subject is notable by any reasonable definition of the term: a toy from a major franchise that includes cartoons, etc. as verifiable online. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There are many toy franchises for popular games, movies, comics, ... This is a good indication for the notability of the franchise, but not for the individual elements that become a toy. The Snorks are notable, an individual Snork isn't. The Smurfs are notable. The farmhouse isn't, the village well isn't, Puppy isn't. The definition of "notable" as presented in WP:N is a reasonable definition. It is not the only possible one, but to claim that it is not a reasonable definition is incorrect. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The definition presented there is as subjective as can be, which is why few editors outside of AfDs ever stick to it and why most of the community goes with WP:IAR with regards to the needlessly restrictive mubo jumbo. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:N has recently be reaffirmed as a guideline by a very strong consensus at an RFC. As far as I can tell, most members of the community agree that it is a quite necessary threshold. Most people also agree that ignoring WP:N is in general not improving the encyclopedia, so IAR does not apply. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not in practice. Most editors are focused on building content than commenting in any snapshot in time RfC. We have far more edits from unique accounts and IPs to articles as well as page views than we'll ever have in AfD, RfC, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The community means a handful of people who were around to notice and participate in the discussion? IAR is a policy. You don't get around that by having a dozen or less people discussing something somewhere most won't notice it. Without a general vote, the guidelines can not be taken seriously. Dream Focus 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no such thing as a "general vote" on Wikipedia since only a fraction of a fraction of WP's userbase have the drive and time to care about a fake internet government. It's a depressing state of affairs. I suggest taking the route of apathy and using Wikias for detailed content while the people here put all their effort and free time into molding this place into some sort of superior and scholarly(ha) information resource by removing information and posting gigs worth of idiotic arguments no one'll ever see. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip, Fram's thoughts on the matter are the same as my own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no pressing need to delete content first that is not libelous or a copy vio. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no pressing need to maintain content which is not used and will not be used because it is not the content we want in an encyclopedia. Content which is not libelous or copyvio is deleted constantly, this would be no exception. Bios of 14 year old schoolkids, myspace bands, insignificant companies, ... don't even get a seven day discussion. You have to argue why the content has to be kept, not that it isn't a copyvio or libel. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not content you want, but obviously it is content that the article writers and readers do want and as such it used by other editors and we should be considerate of their interests just as we would want them to be respectful of ours. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how is this argument different for this article compared to speedy deleted band articles and so on? Every good faith article was of interest to at least the creator, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from deleting many of them. We are here in the first place to create an encyclopedia, and in the second place to be a considerate environment. Reversing the order will diminish the value of the encyclopedia by making it more and more indiscriminate, turning us into a free webhost. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a band with a small local following, but a toy from a mainstream franchise familiar to thousands if not millions of people across the nation and potentially beyond. Apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you don't want this article lumped together with those on local bands and so on, then you shouldn't start with an argument that is equally valid for those local bands and companies as it is for this article. Use arguments which are either specific for this article, or which are applicable to comparable articles, but don't use strawmans or illogical constructions like you did in your "there is no pressing need" at the start of this tree. Fram (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I do not see any logical reason to delete here. If the article is redirectable and there is nothing in the edit history we must protect the public from, we do not need to bother administrators to delete it. Editors can be WP:BOLD and redirect and if contested, discuss on the article's talk page instead. And no, bands and companies are not fair comparisons, because a random local band with an arbitrary name (let's say hypothetically the One Armed Paper Cutter Bandits, which hopefully will be a red link...) do not necessarily have redirect locations. Here, even if we did not have Dragstrip to redirect to, unlike the hypothetical band, we could still legitimately redirect to Transformers and someone could make a case for using the basis of this article's content for the purpose of a toy/character list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see don't see the arguement that a fictional character has a name that can be confused with a common noun that also has an article is reason why he's not notable. It just means they are both notable. The Tasmanian Devil from Loony Tunes isn't less notable because his article might be confused with the one for the animal species called Tasmanian devil. Mathewignash (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that argument either. Who has indicated that the toy is not notable because it can be confused with a dragstrip? The toy is not notable and its article can be deleted, full stop. The term is also in use for a dragstrip, so it is a plausible redirect to that article. There is no connection between the two arguments. Fram (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This isn't an article about a toy. Anyone who says so didn't read it. It's an article about a fictional character who has appeared in a half dozen different comic book series by 4 different companies, and in 2 different Anime series. He's a character who has had a toy yes, but that's like calling Donald Duck a toy. As for real world notability, there is a link to a news story about a rare variant of the toy selling for $2000 to collectors. I might also point out that the person who nominated this article for deletion also nominated the similar article Motormaster for deletion a few months ago and it was kept. He seems to be just repeating the same challanges over and over, but we have presidence to keep the article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of real-world notability. Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Dauros, all but one of the sources are not reliable. The one that does pass the bar is a product catalog from Hasbro, which cannot be used when determining notability. Fansitse, wikis, and most other self-published sites can not be used as sources, much else establish notability. And fictional elements, such as characters, are not immune from the notability guidelines either, at least until additional criteria are established at the currently defunct WP:FICT. A toy or character does not gain notability for being part of a notable franchise. The number of GHits is irrelevant to the issue of notability. —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can discount news web sites because they are toy-oriented, after all this article covers something that is toy-oriented. Reports of a rare toy selling for thousands on ebay, for instance, do point to it being notable. Mathewignash (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there are no news sites cited on the page, just fansites and Hasbro's catalogs. The results of an ebay auction has no barring on notability either. You've already stated above that this article isn't about the toy. However, every source dealing directly with the subject have been about the toy, namely in the form of toy catalogs. There has been no evidences presented that the character is notable. —Farix (t | c) 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you can discount sites like seibertron.com. They make money, have official ties to companies, do interviews, get press releases mailed directly to them. They are not just some fan blog, they are a site limited to a small group of interests sure, but they are a news site. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this is a notable enough character. I do not know what you mean when you say "Real world notability", does that mean find information that is more out of universe style? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Real world notability means that the article has references detailing the development of the character and how the character has been received by the media. Without that, the article cannot meet WP:N. TTN (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So youre saying the article has too much in-universe style info? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • The in-universe content is fine, though not very well written or managed. Without any real world information to balance it, the information has no place being in its own article. TTN (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are fictional characters, I dont think any real world media has covered a whole bunch of anime characters, but they are notable when it comes to fiction. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • That's not how notability works. WP:N requires secondary sources to provide significant coverage for all articles. If the content is all about the character within the fictional universe, that means that only primary sources are being used and without the content I mentioned, the criteria of "significant coverage" is also not met. You should read over WP:WAF for more information. TTN (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline is often used as an excuse to destroy every character article out there, simply because people don't like it. It was not voted on by any significant number of people. Sometimes character articles are saved(usually if enough people notice them and decide to comment), sometimes deleted. It all depends who is around at the time to comment, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm obviously an evil deletionist who dislikes all character articles. I'm trying to slowly remove everything related to fiction on this site, and my current goal is to have just a single paragraph called "Fiction" by 2011. It's certainly not like I just have certain standards as to what needs an article and what needs a list entry. It's not like I live and breath fiction, and I just wish to have properly organized articles that give proper weight to the fictional elements. Nope, I'm just someone who hates fiction completely. TTN (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN, it does no good for you to use provocative sarcasm. However, DF, if the notability guidelines did not have wide support among most Wikipedia editors, then they would not be guidelines in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but it really doesn't do any harm with these guys. Even after a proper discussion with people willing to help source the articles in need of their "rescuing", DF still insisted that the video game project was an evil group of people attempting to wipe out articles because they don't like them. The whole process of attempting to keep every single article while pretending to improve them just so they can sit and rot for years on end really gets on my nerves. TTN (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't keep from becoming emotionally involved from some articles, maybe you should avoid trying to delete them? Simply posting tags that an article needs improvement sometimes motivates people to better articles. You should try it more often. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the articles that annoy me; it's the editors who feel the need to try to keep every single character by using annoying and often underhanded tactics. Tags are for when an article can actually improve. Very minor character articles that have been in existence for years are far past the point of being improved. TTN (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My choice is not set in stone, I have been sitting here and looking at both sides of the issue, you brought up the point that this is a minor character in the series, usually if that is true I have seen just redirects or a short summary of the character on the main character page if that is true. The thing that annoys me actully is when editors dont discuss possible changes and their findings in the talk pages of the articles, I have seen more than one article go to straight delete with a huge debate on the delete page like this one here. Deletion shoule be a last step thing in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Actually, in many cases there is *no* discussion even when encouraged until an AfD has been started or the article has already been merged. I can rattle off quite a few instances where other editors have chosen to say nothing on an article's talk page even with a merge tag in place, but when action is taken then you get complaints. So it's understandable to see an obscure character meet an AfD when the article's had no work done on it for a significant length of time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be WP:OR though, if you can cite the book references online it would be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2009 (AT)
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.
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. Consensus indicates the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Arguments that focus on in-universe significance are not convincing. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dauros

[edit]
Dauros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character doesn't assert notability and the content is extremely trivial. TTN (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I think just about every single Transformers article should be deleted, the entries reduced to simple bulleted list items -- rather than assume all these figures warrant articles (most of them don't), axe the stuff there now, and re-create individual articles only when substantiated with meaningful development and/or sales/popularity established. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character is not made up per images, i.e. we can actually see it, so no reason why not to redirect at worst, because obviously some of our colleagues find it a valid search term and we should be considerate to them. Part of an astonishingly notable franchise. No reason at all to outright delete. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the information contained in the article, it seems like it might be most appropriate to merge the content to the other character on which the toy is based. Transformers is a major franchise, and precedent suggests that lists of less notable characters be merged appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you did merge, it would make more sense to merge it with the article on the particular TV series the character appeared on, rather than a broad list of characters. Transformers is a set of dozens of TV series, comic books and thousands of toys. You wouldn't merge a page on Aerial from the Little Mermaid with a article on Walt Disney as much as you might merge her back to the page on the film she appear in. Mathewignash (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with nom/EEMIV on this. Aggressively trivial & fancrufty topic that has no demonstrable notability whatsoever. Eusebeus (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He wasn't just a toy, he was a reoccuring villian in a popular Japanese TV series. Info on it is hard to find on English web pages, as it was never imported to any English speaking countries. Also, there are variants on the spelling of the name. There are pleanty of articles that come up as linking to Dauros, and Dauros on a goodle image search does come up with dozens of pictures of this character. If you can't keep it I say merge the relivant info from the page into a slightly broader page, like the one for the Masterforce TV series, where he was the villian, rather than a extremely broad Transformers page. Since it was only a stubby little article, I did just add some more details and references to it. Hope this helps. Mathewignash (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking over the sources in the article, I do not see any that comes close to be considered reliable. Fansitse, wikis, and most other self-published sites can not be used as sources, much else establish notability. And fictional elements, such as characters, are not immune from the notability guidelines either, at least until additional criteria are established at the currently defunct WP:FICT. The number of GHits is irrelevant to the issue of notability. Also note that Mathewignash has posted notices at WT:ANIME, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toys, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers. —Farix (t | c) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is posting a comment in a project about a character getting proposed for deletion incorrect? If so I apologize. Please let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some editors view it as canvasing. Best to leave a notice in the affected discussion when notices about an issue are posted elsewhere. --—Farix (t | c) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not incorrect. The more editors who participate, the better and especially if you bring in more experts on the subject under discussion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as posting notices is aimed at generating discussion rather than votestacking, it is fine. However, the frequency of the latter is far higher than the frequency of the former. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I admit to wanting to save an article, but by making it better and getting more people involved in working on it. I don't think there is a crime there. I also thingk project that involve an article would want to know before an article is deleted, so this is strictly informative for them. I don't contact people specifically and say "save this article", but I did contact a couple projects and told them to voice their opinions (yes, I'm hoping they are for saving the article by making it more acceptable as a wikipedia page.) Mathewignash (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for notability of the sources, this is a Japanese anime character, you won't find him mentioned often in the New York Times. Most sources would be in Japanese. I did source several english speaking news oriented pages, some of which are professional news coverage sites, if specialized in collecting toys or covering anime. For instance the Geocities page is a translation of official Takara press releases. You can't cite the Japanese, we only have the translation. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then find the sources. We don't presume they exists. Press releases should be cited directly and not through some non-professional translation, but it still doesn't not prove notability. —Farix (t | c) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (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.
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. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Top (Transformers)

[edit]
Big Top (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivial comic book character that appeared in one comic issue ever. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (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.
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 The Transformers (animated series) characters. NW (Talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tailgate (Transformers)

[edit]
Tailgate (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Transformers character. I looked for sources and didn't find any reliable ones. Trivial listcruft/fancruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable? Sources need to back up your claim of "notable", otherwise the article isn't notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (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.
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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadruple Changer

[edit]
Quadruple Changer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable, cannot find much on google that supports this article. magnius (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, toys aren't always notable, and no evidence to show that this one is. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there are a number of sources to validate this as a concept. However, it certainly doesn't merit its own page but it seems sensible to merge it somewhere so that readers who are interested can find what it is about. There are so many Transformers pages that I'll leave it to those more expert than I to determine the best target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These toys are notable, as being a type of robot in the popular series, which can do what none others can, changing into four forms! And Scorponok is very notable, having been featured in many series over the years. While the number of robots they manage to make which could change into four forms is rare, that something difficult to accomplish, at least one they did manage to do this with, became insanely successful. Dream Focus 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I also found no decent sources to prove otherwise. This Transformers fancruft is much better suited for a Transformers Wiki and not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely unnotable toy. Appears to be more a fan-made term for a certain style of toy rather than any actual official term. No reliable sources even mention the term at all, only fansites. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transformers&oldid=1047997829"