Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy over Galvatron's identity

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. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Galvatron's identity

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

I cannot find any reliable sources that verify any of the things said here. This appears to be 100% fan-made OR. Although the sources say that Megatron is Galvatron, some people don't believe that. Until that controversy spills over to anywhere notable, we cannot include this material on WP. This article was moved out of a section at Galvatron, but that article has enough problems with the verifiable cruft, and should not have the burden of this content merged back in. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced content. If there is anything substantive to be said about this topic, it ought to be said in the Galvatron article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much as it pains me to do this, I have to vote delete. All this material is interesting to me as a Transformers fan, but it's completely unsourced speculation, and thus has no place on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 05:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as my father liked Transformers when he was younger, I'm afraid that we have to delete this one. Even if this article's content wasn't entirely fancruft, it still violates one of the core policies of Wikipedia - no original research, and speculation on top of that. If there were actual reliable sources on the topic, it could have had its own article, or at least be merged into the Galvatron article, but as it stands now, I just can't see this having its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too believe the article's heart to be in the right place, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for this type of unreferenced speculation. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's interesting, but Wikipedia is not a fansite. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:39, 29 May 2012 (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.