Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag Strip

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Stunticons. Clearly no consensus to keep, and while Stunticons isn't suggested below as a target, it seems to me to the be correct place, and I don't think there's anything notable here to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Strip[edit]

Drag Strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not assert independent notability. TTN (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, either to Dragstrip or List of Decepticons. Powers T 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence or assertion of non-notability as the term is at least worthy of an article in the racing sense as confirmed by Google News and Google books. The character is also a toy from a notable show that you even look at pictures of online, i.e. no reason why we would redlink, maybe merge and redirect, maybe improve, but not redlink. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term you get results for is drag strip (or dragstrip), not capitalized Drag Strip. The sources you find in Google News and Google Books are not about the Transformers[1][2]. I have no idea what you mean with "assertion of non-notability", of course the article will not say that the subject is not notable, but that is so utterly not the point of the JNN essay that I feel to see why you bring it up here.
      • I believe A Nobody's point is that deleting the page (producing a redlink) is unnecessary since a redirect will be needed. Powers T 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keeping the history when it has nothing to do with the actual redirect is pointless. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really, because given that the franchise it is associated with is an active one, a case for further improvement or merging is a realistic potentiality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just like it is for every speedy deleted bio, band or company: they may one day become notable. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • This one already is notable enough that we do not need to trouble an admin to delete the edit history. A redirect, which is a reasonable argument in this instance, could have been discussed on the talk page instead. AfD need not be troubled with redirectable ones. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip. The current subject of the article is not notable, but the title of the article is a plausible search term for unrelated content. Fram (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current subject is notable by any reasonable definition of the term: a toy from a major franchise that includes cartoons, etc. as verifiable online. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There are many toy franchises for popular games, movies, comics, ... This is a good indication for the notability of the franchise, but not for the individual elements that become a toy. The Snorks are notable, an individual Snork isn't. The Smurfs are notable. The farmhouse isn't, the village well isn't, Puppy isn't. The definition of "notable" as presented in WP:N is a reasonable definition. It is not the only possible one, but to claim that it is not a reasonable definition is incorrect. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The definition presented there is as subjective as can be, which is why few editors outside of AfDs ever stick to it and why most of the community goes with WP:IAR with regards to the needlessly restrictive mubo jumbo. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:N has recently be reaffirmed as a guideline by a very strong consensus at an RFC. As far as I can tell, most members of the community agree that it is a quite necessary threshold. Most people also agree that ignoring WP:N is in general not improving the encyclopedia, so IAR does not apply. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not in practice. Most editors are focused on building content than commenting in any snapshot in time RfC. We have far more edits from unique accounts and IPs to articles as well as page views than we'll ever have in AfD, RfC, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The community means a handful of people who were around to notice and participate in the discussion? IAR is a policy. You don't get around that by having a dozen or less people discussing something somewhere most won't notice it. Without a general vote, the guidelines can not be taken seriously. Dream Focus 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no such thing as a "general vote" on Wikipedia since only a fraction of a fraction of WP's userbase have the drive and time to care about a fake internet government. It's a depressing state of affairs. I suggest taking the route of apathy and using Wikias for detailed content while the people here put all their effort and free time into molding this place into some sort of superior and scholarly(ha) information resource by removing information and posting gigs worth of idiotic arguments no one'll ever see. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip, Fram's thoughts on the matter are the same as my own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no pressing need to delete content first that is not libelous or a copy vio. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no pressing need to maintain content which is not used and will not be used because it is not the content we want in an encyclopedia. Content which is not libelous or copyvio is deleted constantly, this would be no exception. Bios of 14 year old schoolkids, myspace bands, insignificant companies, ... don't even get a seven day discussion. You have to argue why the content has to be kept, not that it isn't a copyvio or libel. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not content you want, but obviously it is content that the article writers and readers do want and as such it used by other editors and we should be considerate of their interests just as we would want them to be respectful of ours. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how is this argument different for this article compared to speedy deleted band articles and so on? Every good faith article was of interest to at least the creator, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from deleting many of them. We are here in the first place to create an encyclopedia, and in the second place to be a considerate environment. Reversing the order will diminish the value of the encyclopedia by making it more and more indiscriminate, turning us into a free webhost. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a band with a small local following, but a toy from a mainstream franchise familiar to thousands if not millions of people across the nation and potentially beyond. Apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you don't want this article lumped together with those on local bands and so on, then you shouldn't start with an argument that is equally valid for those local bands and companies as it is for this article. Use arguments which are either specific for this article, or which are applicable to comparable articles, but don't use strawmans or illogical constructions like you did in your "there is no pressing need" at the start of this tree. Fram (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I do not see any logical reason to delete here. If the article is redirectable and there is nothing in the edit history we must protect the public from, we do not need to bother administrators to delete it. Editors can be WP:BOLD and redirect and if contested, discuss on the article's talk page instead. And no, bands and companies are not fair comparisons, because a random local band with an arbitrary name (let's say hypothetically the One Armed Paper Cutter Bandits, which hopefully will be a red link...) do not necessarily have redirect locations. Here, even if we did not have Dragstrip to redirect to, unlike the hypothetical band, we could still legitimately redirect to Transformers and someone could make a case for using the basis of this article's content for the purpose of a toy/character list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see don't see the arguement that a fictional character has a name that can be confused with a common noun that also has an article is reason why he's not notable. It just means they are both notable. The Tasmanian Devil from Loony Tunes isn't less notable because his article might be confused with the one for the animal species called Tasmanian devil. Mathewignash (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that argument either. Who has indicated that the toy is not notable because it can be confused with a dragstrip? The toy is not notable and its article can be deleted, full stop. The term is also in use for a dragstrip, so it is a plausible redirect to that article. There is no connection between the two arguments. Fram (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This isn't an article about a toy. Anyone who says so didn't read it. It's an article about a fictional character who has appeared in a half dozen different comic book series by 4 different companies, and in 2 different Anime series. He's a character who has had a toy yes, but that's like calling Donald Duck a toy. As for real world notability, there is a link to a news story about a rare variant of the toy selling for $2000 to collectors. I might also point out that the person who nominated this article for deletion also nominated the similar article Motormaster for deletion a few months ago and it was kept. He seems to be just repeating the same challanges over and over, but we have presidence to keep the article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of real-world notability. Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Dauros, all but one of the sources are not reliable. The one that does pass the bar is a product catalog from Hasbro, which cannot be used when determining notability. Fansitse, wikis, and most other self-published sites can not be used as sources, much else establish notability. And fictional elements, such as characters, are not immune from the notability guidelines either, at least until additional criteria are established at the currently defunct WP:FICT. A toy or character does not gain notability for being part of a notable franchise. The number of GHits is irrelevant to the issue of notability. —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can discount news web sites because they are toy-oriented, after all this article covers something that is toy-oriented. Reports of a rare toy selling for thousands on ebay, for instance, do point to it being notable. Mathewignash (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there are no news sites cited on the page, just fansites and Hasbro's catalogs. The results of an ebay auction has no barring on notability either. You've already stated above that this article isn't about the toy. However, every source dealing directly with the subject have been about the toy, namely in the form of toy catalogs. There has been no evidences presented that the character is notable. —Farix (t | c) 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you can discount sites like seibertron.com. They make money, have official ties to companies, do interviews, get press releases mailed directly to them. They are not just some fan blog, they are a site limited to a small group of interests sure, but they are a news site. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this is a notable enough character. I do not know what you mean when you say "Real world notability", does that mean find information that is more out of universe style? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Real world notability means that the article has references detailing the development of the character and how the character has been received by the media. Without that, the article cannot meet WP:N. TTN (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So youre saying the article has too much in-universe style info? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • The in-universe content is fine, though not very well written or managed. Without any real world information to balance it, the information has no place being in its own article. TTN (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are fictional characters, I dont think any real world media has covered a whole bunch of anime characters, but they are notable when it comes to fiction. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • That's not how notability works. WP:N requires secondary sources to provide significant coverage for all articles. If the content is all about the character within the fictional universe, that means that only primary sources are being used and without the content I mentioned, the criteria of "significant coverage" is also not met. You should read over WP:WAF for more information. TTN (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline is often used as an excuse to destroy every character article out there, simply because people don't like it. It was not voted on by any significant number of people. Sometimes character articles are saved(usually if enough people notice them and decide to comment), sometimes deleted. It all depends who is around at the time to comment, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm obviously an evil deletionist who dislikes all character articles. I'm trying to slowly remove everything related to fiction on this site, and my current goal is to have just a single paragraph called "Fiction" by 2011. It's certainly not like I just have certain standards as to what needs an article and what needs a list entry. It's not like I live and breath fiction, and I just wish to have properly organized articles that give proper weight to the fictional elements. Nope, I'm just someone who hates fiction completely. TTN (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN, it does no good for you to use provocative sarcasm. However, DF, if the notability guidelines did not have wide support among most Wikipedia editors, then they would not be guidelines in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but it really doesn't do any harm with these guys. Even after a proper discussion with people willing to help source the articles in need of their "rescuing", DF still insisted that the video game project was an evil group of people attempting to wipe out articles because they don't like them. The whole process of attempting to keep every single article while pretending to improve them just so they can sit and rot for years on end really gets on my nerves. TTN (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't keep from becoming emotionally involved from some articles, maybe you should avoid trying to delete them? Simply posting tags that an article needs improvement sometimes motivates people to better articles. You should try it more often. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the articles that annoy me; it's the editors who feel the need to try to keep every single character by using annoying and often underhanded tactics. Tags are for when an article can actually improve. Very minor character articles that have been in existence for years are far past the point of being improved. TTN (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My choice is not set in stone, I have been sitting here and looking at both sides of the issue, you brought up the point that this is a minor character in the series, usually if that is true I have seen just redirects or a short summary of the character on the main character page if that is true. The thing that annoys me actully is when editors dont discuss possible changes and their findings in the talk pages of the articles, I have seen more than one article go to straight delete with a huge debate on the delete page like this one here. Deletion shoule be a last step thing in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Actually, in many cases there is *no* discussion even when encouraged until an AfD has been started or the article has already been merged. I can rattle off quite a few instances where other editors have chosen to say nothing on an article's talk page even with a merge tag in place, but when action is taken then you get complaints. So it's understandable to see an obscure character meet an AfD when the article's had no work done on it for a significant length of time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character has appeared in numerous cartoons and comics, from various companies, as well as being a popular toy. Dream Focus 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Transformers (animated series) characters Redirecting to Drag strip will be a mistake in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (AT)
    • There is no reason/need to delete first per the above, i.e. per WP:PRESERVE. Only hoaxes, copy vios, and libel need be deleted prior to a redirect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed to keep people happy. My reason for not redirecting to drag strip is that the character and the actual thing have little in common in the real world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (AT)
  • Delete - I refer participants to WP:SPS - blogs and pages selling products are not reliable sources. Try some peer-reviewed content published by academic sources through a professional editorial process, for a change. - Biruitorul Talk 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be really accurate blogs are usually not RS however RS blogs do exist some examples David Welsh a columnist in Tom Spurgeon's Comics Reporter, Brigid Alverson's Manga blog, who writes for the Publishers Weekly and Matthias Wivel's Metabunker who wrote for The Comics Journal along with comics related books. All examples are just for comics & manga field.
      The bottom line is any source regardless its origin should assessed in term of Reliability, Credibility & Relevance to the subject in others words editors must exert their sense of criticism and given weight accordingly. No systematic, systemic and bureaucratic handling of the sources. Thanks --KrebMarkt 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of independent notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just requested several books from my local library system which are guides to japanese anime and Transformers, etc. I plan on going over them and citing references etc. If anyone can help me with a guide to writing a fully detailed citation of a book, please point me to it. Mathewignash (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be WP:OR though, if you can cite the book references online it would be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2009 (AT)
  • Merge to List of Decepticons. No real-world notability. Few RS offer no significant coverage, only minor mentions. Fails WP:N, and goes against WP:WAF. Appropriate merge to the character list seems the most appropriate solution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge a sentence or two. This character deserves a mention but not enough for an article of it's own, and again (like in Dauros) the references are unacceptable. - Josette (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drag_Strip&oldid=1069472892"