Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpath (Transformers)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 April 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Even though this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warpath (Transformers)

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

Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page isn't about a Gobot, and the nominator seems to be going around nominating articles based on some Gobot-hate spree. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So anyone has the temerity to nominate an article to delete is must because of pure hatred of fiction. Nothing to with the fact the article, has a severe lack of reliable third person sources. The only source is WP:FANSITE, and questionable notability. Notability isn't inherent. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this ONE particular case, he is going on some gobot hate spree. He's nominating a bunch of articles and calling them "gobots". Mathewignash (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another primary character from the first 2-3 seasons of the TV show. Sources [1], [2]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only 'reliable source' that I have found is a book consisting entirely of Wikipedia articles. [3] This is not quite what usually goes by that term. Hans Adler 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Who nominated this page is totally irrelevant for the question whether this stuff belongs into an encyclopedia or not. Hans Adler 09:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the nominator is a sockpuppet of Torkmann, but this should not detract from the fact that the nomination is accurate. As Hans points out, the sourcing is hopelessly inadequate. Reyk _YO! 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Nobody knew Donald was a sockpuppet when this AFD was started, and several people have made good-faith comments based on the merits of the article so a procedural close is now out of the question. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources improved - I just spent a couple minutes looking online for some sources for Warpath as a notable character and added them. Mathewignash (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and marketing websites do not establish notability. It's hard to tell what kind of website IGN is, but it doesn't look like the kind that would prove notability. As there is still no evidence of notability, I see no reason to change my !vote. Hans Adler 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I just saw that the IGN thing is a press release. They don't count anyway. A lot of publications publish almost every press release you send them. Hans Adler 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important secondary character who has had a couple of stories focused on itself. --Polaron | Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean we are supposed to keep the article because it's about a fictional character that appeared in several primary sources? I don't think that's a valid argument. Hans Adler 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - What do you expect from inclusionist fanboys the argument is always it it exists so therefore it's inherently notable. Wikipedia's policy on verfication clearly states

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:44, 22 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.