Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (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. Courcelles 01:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alice (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources found through multiple Google searches. Claritas § 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A major movie character with references in media. What the heck if this thing being nominated for? Mathewignash (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently cited- a forum post, a YouTube video, a blog post talking about special effects and a light-hearted article that doesn't even mention the character, just shows a picture. That may be something to do with why it's being nominated. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By "Blog post", you mean the one written by "Randall Hand is a visualization scientist working for a federal research lab, aiding researchers to discover the insights buried within their terabyte datasets generated on some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. He also runs VizWorld.com" BY article that doesn't mention her by name, it does! Just click on her picture. You don't even bother reafing the whole article before you object to it. Mathewignash (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean that blog post, and no, the article doesn't mention her. Like I said, it shows a picture, it doesn't discuss or even mention her. I read both of those pages, as they are both incredibly short. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPS: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.  Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If Randall Hand can be confirmed as an established expert whose work in the relevent field has been previously published in reliable sources, then his "blog" might be considered acceptable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more reliable coverage is forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news shows plenty of results. Here is one that mentions the character several times throughout the MTV article .  Such a memorable character is sure to be mentioned wherever they talk about the film.   D r e a m Focus  00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not really enough coverage to independently verify most of the information in the article, which suggests that the coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Claritas § 08:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you click the link? That's ample coverage of the character.  We're discussing where the article is notable enough to exist, not arguing over the specific content.  AFD is not cleanup.   D r e a m Focus  21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep as notable character with real world coverage or evidence of independent notability clearly passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources found through multiple Google searches.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no actual evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect Very little development and no reception. Importance to a story is not nobility. The Twins are far more notable movie characters than her right now. Sarujo (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable film character. She appears in a single film, for about a total of 10 minutes (if that). All print media is actually tie-in to this film, and not independent of the film. Everything about this character--which at the moment is nothing but plot info--can and should be presented on the film's page. There is no significant coverage on this character to suggest that she needs her own article and somehow cannot be covered on the film's page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real world coverage or evidence of independent notability, though I suppose it could be redirected to a character list if one exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete notable movie, but that doesn't mean any reliable sources cover this character in depth. This is why character lists are good. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   chatter 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability concerns raised above.   Snotty Wong   chatter 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable secondary coverage. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. — Code  Hydro  13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single minor character from a single film (excluding any tie-in media). No independent notability, no substantial or significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing that couldn't be adequetely covered in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or (if relevant) Isabel Lucas. PC78 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Due to lack of proper sources. Not even a major character in the movie anyway. NotARealWord (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Unlike most of these minor Trans characters this one does (by virtueof its more obvious appeal) does appear to have had some coverage. I would like to see more RS covering the character otehr wise its just anolthr minot bot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen pursuant to the guidelines for elements within a notable fictional work listed at Notability (fiction). No need to destroy the articles history, as the character may become more significant with future Transformer projects. Inniverse (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, people who support keeping the article have a responsibility to improve it. Claritas § 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like many of the proposed deltions are skipping step 3, where the nominator are supposed to suggest improvements. Are the nominators allowed to just skip the work on making articles better before they just jump right to delete now? Mathewignash (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WP:BEFORE is not currently required, though I certainly think it ought to be. Despite that, i personally regard paying attention to it at AfD to be a signal of good faith, a signal that one does believe that the goal of deletion process is to  fix what can be fixed, and delete only the unfixable.  In particular, to bring this here with the bare recommendation to delete, rather than to merge--or to explain why merging is unsatisfactory--is in my opinion less than optimal and not conducive to a proper discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources, then merging is never an option, because the content is essentially unverifiable, except through primary sources, which are not suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Claritas § 08:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course primary sources are acceptable in fiction plot. For instance when writing a plot summary to a movie, you don't need to find a review of a movie that tells you the plot, you can write a plot based on simply watching the movie yourself and writing it. So while a character may not be worthy of a an article, but if there is a section of a page for a TV show or movie that is noteworthy that lists the characters and what they did, you only need a primary source. Mathewignash (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The actual choice is between merge and keep; it seems to me there is enough distinctive about this particular character for a separate article.    DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shame there are practically no sources, and the current article is an absolute mess... J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Sourcing in this article is very poor, notability is not established and devoting an entire article to a minor character who appeared for a few minutes is textbook WP:UNDUE. Reyk  YO!  03:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Please stop with the delete cliche defianetly when you can use this one as a redirect to Characters in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's delete the unverifiable content. We can make a redirect afterwards. Claritas § 17:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that really matters. But whatever floats your boat. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No real point in creating a redirect anyway due to parentheses. Claritas § 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the disambiguation page is for if they are looking for a character in that particular name. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources exist that can WP:verify notability of this toy or character. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTABILITY - Isabelle Lucas was recognized for her breakout performance as Alice at Spike TV's Scream 2009 awards, which was reported by the Associated Press. Mathewignash (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Reyk and Shooter have it right (some others too). To Mathew -- that cite might support notability for Lucas, but does nothing at all for the notability of this fictional thing independent of the work of fiction in which it appeared. There is nothing that supports the notability of the character in what is sometimes called the "realityverse."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.