Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrapnel (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 Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrapnel (Transformers)

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

No reliable coverage on CNN, CBS news, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This character shows no notability, only important within the franchise. Can serve better in corresponding character lists. Sarujo (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a character list per SarujoSadads (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that seems to be a skewed view of the world, does everything have to make it onto US TV news to get an article? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Transformers. There are several such lists, so merge to the appropriate one, or a new one. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Insecticons. I don't see how a Transformers character would have to be covered on TV news to be notable. JIP | Talk 06:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Insecticons. The arguement that CNN isn't covering a fictional character is a bit flawed. They don't generally cover fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poorly-phrased nomination, but the gist is sound; we need to see coverage in reliable sources to justify these sorts of articles. As there are none to be found for this or the dozens of transformer articles that have already been deleted, the choice here is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Insecticons.Dwanyewest (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding the original point. It doesn't have to be on the TV news, its just that the examples used here were TV news outlets. The point is that there is NO coverage from outside the franchise and its fandom, whether on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, in books, or any other medium. You know, RELIABLE 3rd party sources. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well in that case the nominator is pretty fond of those examples. So far, he's used them in every Transformers AFD he's participated in. --Divebomb (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc (in all their comments). This does not have the level of notability, as far as I can tell, to have Shrapnel {Transformers) as a search term (that is, as a redirect). Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to the article about Insecticons. The other Shrapnel was never actually seen, so he doesn't really matter. NotARealWord (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons. There's no point deleting it, and there's no point keeping it. If I may borrow Tarc's phrasing, the choice here is pretty clear. --Divebomb (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is moving one un-notable subject to another un-notable subject suppose to be a better solution? Sarujo (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do you know that the other subject is also non-notable? This tendency to make broad judgements about the notability of certain topics annoys me. --Divebomb (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because both this character and the insecticon pages do not show things critical and real world impact. Things that do make up notability. Their just random characters in a story. And I ask that you compose yourself a little more tactfully in your comments. Sarujo (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment That's a rationale for improvement, not deletion. Reliable sources are out there for a lot of these characters. We just need to find them. --Divebomb (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I'm not quite sure if the Insecticons as a whole are non-notable, it could be one of those articles that are just badly written/sourced, instead of being a truly non-notable subject.

Most Transformers articles are so badly sourced people can't tell the difference. Thats what happens when fancruft is left to run wild.

— Dwanyewest, the reply to a comment of mine on the Transformers Wikiproject talk page

-NotARealWord (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I know of at least one third-party source that talks about the Insecticons, so it's not like they're one of those random obscure characters that no one outside the fandom cares about. --Divebomb (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please stop bickering and just get on with deleting this thing. This topic gets no play in the real world. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purpose of AfD discussions is not to "get on with deleting this thing" but to form a consensus on whether an article should be deleted. Currently it looks like many people here want the article to be merged to Insecticons. JIP | Talk 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Insecticons as a whole are an (somewhat) important subgroup. I'd prefer merging or redirecting since they're not completely trivial characters. NotARealWord (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Insecticons per Sarujo and request checkuser on afd nominator per past precedent with banned sockpuppet nominating transformers articles with similarly weak deletion rationales en masse. Vodello (talk)
- Take it to SPI --Divebomb (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I don't have a problem with a merge as the article does not have enough to deserve a solo article but can be redirected somewhere useful. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not familiar enough with the current situation to know which banned account this new user is. I request that someone else take this to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and possibly ~~include User:Divebomb~~inconclusive that "new" editor is banned sock as he is also a new account that has mass-nominated Transformers articles and carries the same traits of a previously banned sock. Vodello (talk) 02:38, 22 October 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.