Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumper (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) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper (Transformers)[edit]

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

Article with no reliable/non-primary sources 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) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above comment was made by an established and banned sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 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) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and that goes for all Transformers related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft, sourced to fansites, no real-world notability to be found, fails WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a minor character who came about due to some sort of packaging error. NotARealWord (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable multi media character where reliable sourcing can be found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This copypasta you've done to just about every Transformers AfD just amounts to a WP:ITSNOTABLE, you know. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability - I'm adding a book reference where they talk about the high price and collectablility of this rare toy variant commanding large sums on ebay. Mathewignash (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nominator. Norton's assertion that reliable sourcing can be found is false. Efforts have been made to find reliable sources that establish real world notability for this fictional thing and they have not been found. Don't know why someone would write such a thing without a source in hand to prove the assertion.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's funny you say no reliable sources can be found when I just added one from A complete history of American comic books By Shirrel Rhoades where he spends a paragraph talking about the collectability and value of this toy. It's not even a book about toys or Transformers. Mathewignash (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, are you talking about this link, which is actually a single sentence? ("In fact, he's careful not to remove toys from their packaging, for an unopened transformer Bumblejumper is worth $409 vs $40 for the loose toy.") That section of the book is about collecting comic books, with a brief aside on comic-related toys, name-dropping this one to make an example of how original packaging is valuable. Your characterization of the coverage is very inflated. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another example of an article built entirely out of primary sources with no real other coverage. Significant secondary coverage per WP:RS can't be found, and the article clearly fails both WP:FICT and by extension WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, the few that are presented are primary only and not reliable, and ultimately it fails GNG and notability. Skinny87 (talk) 14:25, 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.