Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosshairs (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 to Transformers: Generation 1. And other articles as discussed. Sandstein 09:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crosshairs (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has numerous sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be used in a meaningful way to be relevant. Even if every single source is reliable, that means nothing if they're not actually being used properly. Ever citation in this article is either for primary fictional information or extremely basic facts. TTN (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into Transformers: Generation 1, Transformers (film) and Transformers: Dark of the Moon (striking previous vote, see below) - as I stated in the other AFD, this is a notable character from a notable television series and its clear these things exist. The television series is notable ~~and there is more than enough information on this character to substantiate its own article~~. Notability of this character is established by the notability of the TV series, which this character is an aspect of. —Mythdon 23:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. As in the other discussion, you are basing your stance entirely on completely subjective ideas of notability that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's standard of notability. The character is probably notable in the context of Transformers, but that does not always correlate to Notability. You want to find sources describing the character's critical impact and reception of the character. TTN (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As what is an aspect of a fictional work, Crosshairs is still going to be covered some form or another on Wikipedia regardless of this AFD. What you are suggesting is not whether this topic should be covered, but rather, whether it should have its own separate article. If you are concerned that Crosshairs does not warrant its own separate article, but still believe its notable within Transformers, a merge discussion probably should've been done instead of starting this AFD, since with or without its own separate article, Crosshairs is still going to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. That way, a group of editors can discuss whats appropriate content to merge (or even just redirect it if there isn't any). Deletion is a method for determining whether content is appropriate for Wikipedia, not whether appropriate content should have its own separate article. That is why often merges and redirects are decided at AFD. That is also why we have merge and redirect discussions. So yeah, articles can be improved while at AFD, but choosing to seek out this process when the content is still going to be on Wikipedia isn't the best course action in this case, in my opinion. My suggestion would be to propose a merge if you think the content simply doesn't warrant its own article, to give others enough time to discuss, rather than have to go through the timed process of AFD. —Mythdon 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. This is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with articles, especially ones that have failed to establish notability for about ten years now. Any outcome is fine so long as the outcome is that the content is removed if notability can not be established. TTN (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mythdon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere useful if anyone feels the need- offer some suggestions. No evidence of independent notability and the article's a mess. Mythdon's keep argument does not seem to align with any Wikipedia guidelines; if the argument is instead that there is a better way to clean up the disaster that is Wikipedia's coverage of Transformers, then, again, offer some suggestions. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reasoning for striking keep vote) - Merging down into Transformers: Generation 1, Transformers (film) and Transformers: Dark of the Moon to address the notability concerns whilst still establishing an argument for preserving the content. After further consideration and in taking into account J Milburns suggestion and in view of my comments at similar AFD's, character is notable within Transformers and while that establishes notability of Crosshairs within Transformers, there's absolutely no reception on this character in independent sources that would make this article not written entirely on plot summary or read as a toy guide. Much of that content can instead be merged somewhere into those articles. And while I still stand by my arguments that articles on fictional subjects shouldn't be AFD'd if there's still going to be a mention somewhere on Wikipedia and the content still has a place somewhere on Wikipedia (situations where a merge/redirect would suffice), I stand corrected in that I made no serious attempt to address the notability concerns and my initial arguments to keep made no serious attempt to fix the issues at hand. All things considered, the way I approached this particular AFD with regards to my position is where I went wrong, and merging is a reasonable compromise to preserve appropriate content while fixing the issues at hand and addressing the valid concerns raised by the delete voters. —Mythdon 05:08, 21 September 2016 (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.