Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonecrusher (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 List of Decepticons . Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonecrusher (Transformers)[edit]

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

I wouldn't mind a redirect (though I don't know where), but as an article this cannot stand. A bunch of blogs and catalogs don't establish notability--the most relevant real-world fact, with some kind of verification, is that someone named their dog after this toy. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing redirection not deletion. The nomination seems quite feeble as it is an easy task to find appropriate targets by using the what links here function which readily lists such possible targets as List_of_The_Transformers_characters. The page has 34 sources and it is easy to find more such this. The nomination misrepresent the sources by calling them blogs and catalogs when there are several book among them. The notability of the topic seem quite apparent and, as the page is quite substantantial, WP:SIZE indicates that we should leave well alone. Warden (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Decepticons is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Colonel predictably links to not an independent book that discusses this thing in-depth, but rather a catalog and pricelist of products. One cannot deduce notability from such a book, or from the in-universe books and manuals referenced in the article, since such books automatically, by virtue of what they are, list everything: that's their job. Boz, in this and the other cases I'd be fine with a redirect, of course. The redirect isn't as simple as the Colonel makes it out to be (and the Colonel is on a spree of reversing the redirects I've made, without explanation or so much as a by-your-leave), since there are a lot of different targets and I'd rather leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is detailed, independent and reliable. The topic therefore passes WP:SIGCOV and that's that. Drmies' distaste for Transformers naturally extends to sources which cover the topic. There's no pleasing someone with such an attitude - see confirmation bias. Warden (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Decepticons. There is a rather impressive list of sources at the bottom of the article, but they all look like fansites, primary sources, or comprehensive catalogs. Much like All Media Guide is not used to establish notability for music-related topics and comprehensive film guides are not used to establish notability for films, I would argue that comprehensive toy catalogs can not be used to establish notability for toys. The rest of the sources are self-published or don't actually discuss the toy/character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with NinjaRP - no clear sources for establishing notability outside of the fanverse. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outrageous stupidity. What is this Wiki-Fourth-Grade? Delete this Gobots stuff. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is little need to keep the article in its current state. If there is any future improvement calling for a split from the list, it can easily be brought back. TTN (talk) 17:09, 30 November 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.