Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devastator (Transformers)
- 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Devastator (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major character in a recent notable film. USA Today did an article about what characters people want to see in the next Transformers movie back 2007. Devastator came in tied for second. [1]Mathewignash (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability USA Today reported ""Spielberg saw it and said, 'This is (expletive) awesome!' " Bay says, and adds: "It's always nice when you can make him swear." Spielberg commenting on Devastator in USA today? Non-notable? I think not. Mathewignash (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a List of Transformers characters with other characters. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitely fails WP:GNG. This character will never be notable outside of Transformers, and there will never be enough independent coverage to merit a separate article. — Chromancer talk/cont 02:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "there will never be enough independent coverage " - Must be nice to be able to see into the future like that. Can I get the lotto numbers for next week? If not then please do NOT try to predict the future. Mathewignash (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't mean that I can't make a reasonable prediction about a minor Transformers character that shows no tendency, argued by you or others, to suddenly be more notable than at present. It means that Wikipedia articles— note that I am not an article, and neither is this disussion— should not predict the future. Maybe if in the future there are some reliable, independent sources that do create an amount of significant secondary coverage this article could be created then, but right now, there aren't, and that makes the existence of this article contrary to the general notability guideline. In the meantime, there's no need to be sarcastic; we can build consensus without it. — Chromancer talk/cont 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Devastator started out as a one time villian in an episode of a 1985 Saturday morning TV series, then he made a coupe reappearances, then disappeared for a coupel decades, THEN APPEARED IN A BLOCKBUSTER FILM AS THE MAJOR BADDIE. Did you see that coming? Mathewignash (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Um, Mathewignash, he didn't start out as a one time villain, he was a recurring character. Also, he debuted in a 1984 episode (Heavy Metal War). NotARealWord (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mathewignash users should not WP:CRYSTALBALL events at present there are not enough reliable sources at present to WP:VERIFY this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why does Black Kite hate Transformers? - Areaseven (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah! Stupid unnoteworthy USA Today and unknown guy named Steven Spielberg! Who do they think they are? Mathewignash (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets analyse the USA Today so beloved by Mathewignash [1]
These seven robots — Scavenger, Scrapper, Hightower, Longhaul, Rampage, Overload and Mixmaster — transform into construction machinery, but also link up with one another to form one gigantic robot stomper named Devastator.
"He's made of vehicles designed to build, and he turns into is someone who loves to destroy," Orci says. "He is an agent of absolute chaos."
Bay says Devastator is the crème de la smash and got a uncharacteristic reaction out of the film's executive producer already.
Mathewignash is suggesting we base an entire article on this small paragraph within a reputable article it still fails WP:NOTE for the reasons below
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so 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. This article only briely describes the character hardly signifcant coverage to justify arces of poorly written fancruft. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there is another USA Today artcicle where they write "Devastator: 16% of the vote. Tied for second place is the evil Devastator, a giant made of bulldozers, dump trucks and other vehicles, which also transform into a team of individual robots. "What makes Devastator stand out from the crowd is that the six Constructicons combine to form him, making him a truly awesome killing machine — even by Decepticon standards," Budiansky says."Mathewignash (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Going through the many Google new hits[2], I find Wired magazine has an article [3] which list it as "one of the best Transformer toys ever", in reason number 5 of its Top 10 Reasons to Skip Work and Go See Transformers 2. Throughout the Google news results they director mentions Devastator, as though mentioning the movie, as a major reason to go see it, it a notable special effect. Dream Focus 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The coverage isn't fantastic by any means, but the Wired article and the USA Today article are a decent starting point. If SFGate is a reliable source then this would be very useful as well. The character even seems to have passed into popular culture to some extent [4]. Taking this all together, it looks like we may have just enough to meet WP:GNG here - which is saying something, as I haven't seen on other Transformers article that does yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Constructicons or something if cannot keep. If even this and Megatron (Beast Era) can't be kept, then we'll have to get rid of all except 3-8 Transformers character articles. NotARealWord (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep How can we miss a chance to use "Modernist Avant-Garde Aesthetics and Contemporary Military Technology" as a source? More seriosly some poking around makes it clear that viable sources exist.©Geni 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. Significant character in both G1 and the second live-action film. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm starting to think keep isn't to bad, considering that, unlike other TF articles which are about different characters of the same name, this is just the many Devastators directly based on the original, so they're kinda the same character. NotARealWord (talk) 02:42, 10 September 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.