Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirge (Transformers) (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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dirge (Transformers)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable coverage on CNN, NBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment. Nominator has used this comment (or others in the form "No reliable coverage on, ") as justification for AFD nominations or for deletion !votes in AFDs begun by others on several articles over the past few days.  Without regard to the content of this article or its suitability for Wikipedia, this rationale provides a significant misrepresentation of the expectations of our notability guidelines.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that's a very skewed view of the world, does something have to appear on US network television to have an article? 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to one of the Transformers character lists. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. This discussion was started only a month after the first discussion, and the consensus of the first discussion was clearly "keep". The nominator insists on using the same argument ("No reliable coverage on CNN, NBC, etc.") for every AfD discussion he starts, as if coverage on American news TV was essential to notability of fictional characters. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was nominated for deletion less than a month previous with overwhelming KEEP agreement. The article has multiple third party sources. Nothing wrong with it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I don't wanna delete the article yet, there is something terrily worng with it. The subject. An article shouldn't be about multiple characters that simply share a name. Yet, Dirgegun and Insecticon Dirge are also covered here. The article should just be about the blue conehead and his various incarnations, the other guys are unrelated and unimportant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I strongly object to the removal of the other incarnations. It is relevant information and should stay. --Divebomb (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Dirgegun and the Insecticon aren't the same character. An article should not simply be about "separate, pretty much unrelated, characters who share a name". The conehead guy might be notable. The others can be mentioned in disambiguation links, at most. I pointed out this kinda issue  already at this AfD. NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another case of a character with no notability and only showing importance within the franchise. Sarujo (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - Inappropriate to renom ~1 month after previous keep-consensus AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE #4 with strong encouragement for merge. There are a few possible character lists where the content can be merged into. And if content is merged, then per WP:COPYWITHIN, the article cannot be deleted. Also the last AfD was just a month ago and did not give enough time for other editorial actions to take place. And finally, a topic does not have to be covered by CNN, NBC, or other mainstream media sources in order to be presumed notable. The requirement is significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is a much broader standard than "mainstream" sources. In fact, nominations citing just lack of coverage by mainstream media instead of all reliable sources are dubious nominations. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. But only until we have a suitable character list. The list of Decepticons page is just plain unhelpful. Unlike Ransack, this character is important enough for a mention. NotARealWord (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural close due to grossly inaccurate nomination rationale. I request the nominator not use AFD until he has at least some grasp of what establishes notability. Vodello (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close per snow keep of last AFD only one month ago. Revisit is a few months perhaps... but to do so within only a few weeks is a slap in the face of recent keep consensus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close Dubious nomination with incredibly weak rationale. And, quite frankly, renominating only a month after a previous AFD ended with a "keep" result shows an incredible lack of respect for recent consensus. Possibly renominate later on, but have someone who actually understands the notability guidelines do it. --Divebomb (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close due to recent vote to keep. Can we at least wait until the new year before we think about renominating this? --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are now five votes to speedy close this AfD discussion because it's too soon after the first one. I would speedy close it myself but I have an interest in the discussion, so I'd prefer avoiding closing it myself. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:15, 24 October 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.