Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightscream

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 List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream[edit]

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

Redirect was undone without explanation. This is a toy/character, with no reliable sources that aren't game guides or catalogs etc. Not notable in the real world, though a redirect would be perfectly fine. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect. It's got a few references, but they turn out to be fansites, Cracked.com, and what looks to me like trivial mentions. Not good enough to establish notability. The original action was legit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt - no iteration of this character meets notability requirements. Lock it down to prevent the redirect from being undone again. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources clearly meet GNG. I see multiple websites and at least one dead-tree book... and furthermore, since multiple toys appear to bear the same name, an article distinguishing among them serves that purpose, and so could be considered a list article, which has different notability expectations, in that a list of non-notable things of a notable type can be appropriately kept. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources "clearly" demonstrate that this toy has been the subject of " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Would that be the comedy website that describes one iteration of the toy as "shitty" or the one that describes itself as the ultimate Transformers fansite? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real coverage in NY Times, Times of London, Harper's Weekly, and others. What is this topic anyway? Non encyclopedic, that is, outside of a preschool playground perhaps. Delete. Thanks.97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - There is nothing to establish actual notability, so an article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:01, 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.