Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixmaster (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixmaster (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) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major character in a recent notable film. Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't be more notable than Devastator —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 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. —Farix (t | c) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability improved - I added a good citation from a third party book that should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the one thing that looks like a reliable source (USA Today) is just a mention in a list of other characters. Nothing to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ignash, - DK's The Ultimate Guide is so not a "third party" source, being a Hasbro-affiliated publication, written by Simon Furman. Plus, the book had spelling mistakes. NotARealWord (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand why there is such animosity towards these pages. True, fancruft needs to be regulated, but only up to a point. A lot of this stuff can be sourced. "No indication of notability in the real world"?? It's in a movie, several cartoons, books and toys. It just doesn't seem right that we allow stub articles for minor-leauge baseball players, but not informative, referenced articles on Transformers characters. Granted most of the sources will be primary, but I think policy there can be stretched a bit. Danski14^(talk) 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm guessing the animosity is due to so many Transformers characters getting articles unnecessarily. If you check here, a lot of articles on non-notable characters somehow got launched. They also somehow escaped deletion for quite a while. So, a lot of space on Wikipedia was inapropriately filled with TF fancruft. NotARealWord (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not seem appropriate to invoke ignoring rules for these characters when they have no real-world impact. Can't WP:verify notability of this topic as a toy, as a movie character, or a cartoon character. We have plenty of articles about toys, but not ones that have had no significance. Wikipedia is not a catalog of all toys. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- yet another minor Transformers character. No convincing assertion of notabiloty, and the sourcing is inadequate. Reyk _YO! 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• More notability estabished - I just added a non-primary book reference that should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That book is a toy guide. If it doesn't say much about the subject of the article (Mixmaster), then it doesn't establish notability.Bali ultimate's argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) is about that kinda source that doesn't give much coverage to the subject. NotARealWord (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the many and varied references in this page, MixMaster is a noteable enough character on his -own- to keep as an article. I know, he's part of the group 'Constructicons' but he's done other stuff. Lots42 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although there is a reliable reference in the USA Today news article, it isn't much more than a passing mention; and given a lack of other reliable sources, this doesn't seem to pass GNG or notability guidelines. Skinny87 (talk) 09:52, 14 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.