Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlock (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlock[edit]

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

Here's the most notable thing: 16% of fans want to see this toy in a sequel, according to USA Today. Article consists of an enormous amount of trivial fan information, combining original plot research with catalog entries on the toys derived from this toy. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just looking at the previous AfD and the first five refs, IGN, IGN, too, and ~~X-entertainment~~ are all lists of top Transformer robots of all time and all list Grimlock in the top ten. The USA today article above contributes a little notability and another IGN review is a spotlight on Grimlock. ~~I don't know about X-entertainment, but~~ Excluding X-Entertainment, the other four seem independent, go into some depth and declare this particular autobot as notable. These sources and coverage of the Grimlock action figures is enough to pass notability for me. The article itself is very complete but relies too much on primary sources and in its enthusiasm looks to contain some synthesis and possibly OR, too. It could be pared back quite a bit without losing essential information. But this is a matter of editing and a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN hits looks good, but is X-Entertainment a reliable source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was uncertain before, but looking more closely, I agree that X-Entertainment isn't reliable. Striking it, thanks. --Mark viking (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 49 sources this time. The nominator seems to be on a deletion spree motivated largely by antipathy towards to subject matter rather than a genuine attempt to understand and engage with the topic. This seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT writ large but, per de gustibus non est disputandum, this is not an adequate reason to delete. The nominator seems like those old-school educators who deplored comics on the grounds that they were not proper literature. But Jane Austen and Dickens were considered frivolous amusements in their day too — plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It remains our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Colonel et al, please explain how this video is a source. I think I counted nine "sources" from this website. Kindly take back your censoring charge, Colonel--it's a bunch of hoohey, and you know as well as I do (well, you probably don't) that individual Transformer bots won't ever be on a level with Jane Austen. You seem to miss, in your usual zeal, that this nomination is for one particular character/toy--I would nominate the gardener in Pride and Prejudice for the same reason. You could show some good faith by trimming this so it's not so obviously a fan page full of OR and nonsense, with four probably incorrectly used non-free images. But hey. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not especially familiar with either Transformers or Austen. Dickens is more to my taste and, for his work, we have pages such as List of Dickensian characters, Dickens' London and Sarah Gamp, which I have worked upon. I would like to do more on those but don't have the time and disruptive discussions like this don't help. You may not care for Transformers but it seems to be a billion-dollar franchise with a huge corpus of books, games, toys, movies, &c. It would be most efficient and sensible to leave Transformers experts to work upon that extensive field leaving us free to work upon our preferred topics: Dickens in my case and bacon in yours. Attacking rival tastes and topics instead seems both uncivil and unproductive per WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Transformers experts believe that fansites constitute reliable sources then it's probably a really good idea not to concede the territory to them. Calling the actions of other editors "disruptive" with no basis in fact is a staggering failure to assume good faith. Pull the log of incivility out of your own eye before accusing others of having a mote in theirs. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not attest to the individual notability of this character. Being selected as a fan favorite is not a component of notability, even if it's selected several times. None of the sources that are self-published photos of the toy in various configurations (which are somewhere around a dozen or more) attest to its notability. Sources that are obvious fan sites with names like "TFormers.com" and "TFW2005.com" don't attest to the toy's notability. Personal attacks upon the nominator are irrelevant to the nomination and the attacker should redact his comments and apologize. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources clearly meet GNG, even if the nom appears to wish that they didn't. 'Significant coverage' is equivalent to 'non-trivial coverage' which is a mere mention of a name in another context, and it's clear that many of these sources meet that definition. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources would those be, the 25% of them that link to tfw2005.com or the fan pictures from conventions? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No real coverage in the mainstream press such as the New York Times, MSNBC, academic journals, and the like. This article also has been deleted several times and has been recreated by fanboys. This article is an insult even by modern internet standards. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are thinking of the right article since even looking at the deletion logs shows no evidence that article has ever been deleted?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate sublist of Lists of Transformers characters. The topic's a searchable term, so there's no reason to delete. But the content of this article is not the type that justifies notability (mostly all primary and fan site references, and where using reliable sources, the topic is not discussed in significant coverage). --MASEM (t) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't know why anyone would try to use a quantity over quality argument regarding the sources. The grand majority are irrelevant, and the few that do don't seem to constitute significant coverage. Redirecting and allowing for a selective merge by someone interested is the best option. TTN (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable character seen throughout many notable toy lines, television series, comic book series, and video games. I'm sure this toy got reviewed somewhere when it first came out, it a robot dinosaur after all. Searching for sources I find this bit at Kotaku [1]. He gets coverage as a video game character there. Just watch the video. The character is reviewed in comic books he appears in. He makes it on an IGN top ten list. He is a fan favorite, a mainstream newspaper listing him as one of the top Transformers its readers voted should be in the next Transformers movie. Dream Focus 09:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Crazy runner (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2013 (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.