Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siblings (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 delete, see final comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it's a great article. I've used it as a reference a half dozen times on Transformers message boards when the subject comes up. user:mathewignash
  • Of course you do. You wrote it. Which really puts a dent into the whole "reference" thing; you're referencing yourself. Interrobamf 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep like the last guy said. YechielMan 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--Orion Minor 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like the last guy said. (I was too lazy to think of my own sentence- so sue me.) -- Kicking222 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a bit of fancruft. But as a Transformers fan I had to check the article and actually found it useful. --Húsönd 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles for minor bands are useful to somebody. Game guides are useful to someone. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Interrobamf 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. But in this case I am hopelessly biased towards having this kept.--Húsönd 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut down to basic info to avoid cruftiness then Cleanup and Merge into the main Transformers Universes article. If noone can be bothered, than delete Bwithh 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the Hell is this supposed to improve the article? Don't lump better, broad articles with useless information. Interrobamf 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tvtv1 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I guess if transformes are notable, this is marginally worthwhile. I guess. Herostratus 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article breaks WP:NOR. Once there are WP:RS that explore this concept we can make such an article, but at this time this has no place in Wikipedia. Notability is NOT important, usefulness is NOT important, WP:NOR IS important! Shinhan 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; OR and extreme fancruft. --MCB 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought it was worth keeping,when it was extensively cleaned up for tone and granular info, but with a quick Google search I can't find any reliable sources to back any of this up. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per lack of verifiability of contents, to Transformers. Likely example of fancruft OR. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the concept of "siblings" in Transformers is indeed very nebulous (not to be mistaken with Nebulos) and as such an article about it would be close to OR and/or fancruft. JIP | Talk 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly fancruft. --BradBeattie 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. — Haeleth Talk 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too minor a topic. Recury 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not important, does not carry enough support nor legitimacy. --Mr Maxim 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fancruft Artw 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR. If someone is really concerned about keeping a list of "brothers" in the Transformers universe, they can do it on a list of transformers article. Mitaphane _talk 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Transformers Universes article per WP:FICT iff sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 19:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Original research. Do not redirect; the title would be an speedy candidate. --Kunzite 02:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all the info on the page into the Transformers mentioned. I think it'd be better if the Transformers who have siblings simply note who their sibling/clone is on their page rather than have a page devoted solely to the concept. If the sibling thing ever becomes the focus of a major plot, then it might be worth having an article on. For now, it's just taking up space. Xuanwu 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but not into the Transformers Universes article, which those suggesting such a merge do not appear to have read, as this subject wouldn't fit there at all. Cut down to basic info and merge either with the individual character's article (which probably mention this stuff already, to be honest), or instead Transformers technology, which covers such subjects as TF "biology" and so on. - Chris McFeely 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing comment: I'm deleting this. Merging original research into another article degrades the latter and doesn't make the former anything but original research. I'm discounting a few uninspired votes ("like the other guy said"). It doesn't matter if it's true or useful, it needs to be notable and reliably verifiable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (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.