Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelie (Transformers) (3rd 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 delete and redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. Imma full protect as well, as people should go to WP:DELREV for this Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers)[edit]

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

According to a quick Google search, only a very small number of reliable sources mention this character at all. Those that do only mention him briefly (three or so paragraphs on average) on a list of negatively received characters. As the character has not received significant coverage, I think that the article fails WP:GNG. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transformers-related deletion discussions. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - barely notable in the fiction. I would say redirect to List of Autobots or other appropriate venue, but an IP recreated the page two months after the last AfD was closed as delete. Anyone knowledgeable enough about the Transformers fiction will be able to find the information they want here or elsewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Rather than salting the article, would making it become a permanently semi-protected redirect solve the problem? Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be ok with that as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It was deleted last time, and rightly so. We shouldn't have to revisit this nonsense. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Milburn: What is your opinion on the possibility of turning the article into a permanently semi-protected redirect rather than deleting and salting it, as discussed above with Argento Surfer? I think that this would have the advantages of deleting the article (not keeping a non-notable article); at the same time, it would allow readers who search for the term to get a result (as opposed to getting nothing at all), avoiding the disadvantages of deleting the article. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a fully protected redirect if there's definitely somewhere worth redirecting to. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (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.