Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Decepticons (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article is entirely Wikia-style fancruft and pure WP:OR. While I will withhold my judgement on whether a List of Decepticons might possibly be notable, the article in its current state would clearly be a WP:TNT candidate regardless. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough of these have their own articles so it qualifies as a valid list. Aids in navigation. Dream Focus 01:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over the past few years, there have been lots of character articles nominated for deletion with consensus to merge or redirect to this list. Deleting this now seems rather underhanded. Plus, Decepticons are a notable element of the Transformers fiction and this list provides a convenient home for all the characters significant to the fiction but not independently notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it would be "underhanded". Just because cruft is merged into another crufty article doesn't make it any less crufty. Often, people point to existing articles as merge targets while ignoring whether it would still be unencyclopedic after the merge. The Transformers character articles are by and large completely unencyclopedic, besides some prominent exceptions like Optimus Prime and Bumblebee (Transformers) (though they need a massive amount of fancruft culling)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entries on lists do not have to be independently notable, so long as the list itself is notable. Common consensus has been that basic (non-crufty) information on these characters should be retained. Failing to note that when nominating this list for deletion seems like a massive oversight. Seeing as how the entries here only rarely include more than name, sub-faction, and alt-mode, I'm not even sure what you're seeing as cruft. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just having their name, faction, etc, makes it a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Information in Wikipedia should be put in context. As for your argument that a list must be needed to organize the characters, there is still Category:Decepticons._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think INDISCRIMINATE was the link you wanted, as this list doesn't fall under the four categories. Are you saying that Decepticons as a whole are not a notable topic?

The category is great, but is limited to characters that are independently notable and have their own article. This list incorporates more than the category and provides more information at a quick glance. See WP:NOTDUP. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undoubtably notable topic needing of a list. This is a page which is in dire need of cleanup and citations, not deletion.★Trekker (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento Surfer's comments. The list definitely requires improvement, but I agree with the comments on the past redirects and the notability of Deceptions as an overall concept. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2019 (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.