Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backstreet (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) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backstreet (Transformers)[edit]

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

Unsourced article that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable character article that just needs work. At the rate these deletionists are nominating articles, how can they expect work to be done on them! Keep and start nominating them at a sane pace. Mathewignash (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a complete failure of WP:GNG. Article's single reference is to a toy pricing guide. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable multi media character where reliable sourcing can be found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a G1 Transformers character list as a comic only character. —Farix (t | c) 01:24, 10 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 and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. This is how things have worked in other areas relating to fictional characters. I don't see why Transformers are such an exception that the content of the articles shouldn't be preserved in a merged character list. —Farix (t | c) 18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Hopeless fancruft. The only source is, as Tarc says, a toy pricing guide. The article is full of in-universe plot summary and when you read stuff like "Does this make him a coward? Perhaps, but when he can not honorably avoid fighting he does his best to crush his fears, lest he be found out." you realize that it's also original research. This highlights why "sourcing" an article to the work of fiction itself is unacceptable; you're actually sourcing it to your impressions of the work of fiction, and that is not what an encyclopedia is about. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reyk is right. Nothing really needs to be said beyond the only citation is to a toy catalogue.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Norton and Mathewignash - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Come on! This shit is making Wikipedia look like a load of cunting bollocks. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:32, 13 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.