Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackarachnia

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 List of Beast Wars characters. No individual notability established.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackarachnia[edit]

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

Fictional character that appears not to pass WP:GNG, sources are all primary, no individual notability asserted. Normally would merge to character list, but no list appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, it's long, but that doesn't mean the character's notable. Not seeing any reason this warrants an article. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lead female character of TWO animated series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per Math - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above votes do not assert notability. No reliable, independent sources available in article or online to assert notability of article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you read the article at all? It has several references from magazines and books outside the fandom. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed read the article, and what citations I can without the paper versions. Could you detail which one(s) you are talking about, and state why they're WP:RS? I currently can't see anything that would qualify as an RS. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Magazine and the Star Online seem real enough. Mathewignash (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Beasties characters or somesuch. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Beast Wars characters, then punch the IP above me in the face. --Divebomb (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see you already have a WP:ATTACK warning on your talk page, you should probably read it. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have read it. Also, if you're gonna quote policies, then at least link to the correct one. --Divebomb (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment- Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [1] are unreliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:53, 20 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.