Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beachcomber (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   Courcelles 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Not one of the keep votes provides anything mroe than an assertion, with- all between them- zero proof or evidence provided. Hand waiving at notability is not enough. Courcelles 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Beachcomber (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article with no reliable 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) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable character. One episode of the original cartoon series was focused solely on him. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm amazed at the absurdities expressed in the 3 "votes" above, please read and re-read WP:GNG. We're looking for real-world coverage here; what do reliable sources independent of the subject have to say about it?  All it has now is a fan forum for citations, an utter failure of a reliable source.  This is the essence of fancruft; being important within the fictional universe does not confer real-world notability. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable multi media character where reliable sourcing can be found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to a G1 Transformers character list. His other appearances doesn't appear to be significant (mostly toy releases). —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it's true that one episode of a cartoon is mostly about him, that's still not enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would at least justify a redirect to the episode list entry. However, this character has also appeared in the original comic series with an apparently larger role. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is notable character article and I agree that at the the rate the deletionists are nominating these articles, how can they expect work to be done on them! These deletionists really do hurt Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of credible secondary sources about this Beachcomber chap I find makes this a fail of GNG and all that. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder if anyone could explain exactly why this should be kept, rather than just copypasting WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes to every Transformers AfD? There's not a single Keep comment here which addresses the issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that is why I am thankful that AfDs are not vote-counting exercises. None of these address the issues of sourcing to toy guides and fan sites, thus they should be discarded at the final consideration IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 13 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.