Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Punch


 * 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 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Double Punch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have any third-party significant commentary. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Action Mastersper WP:BEFORE #5, which should have been done by the nominator of the article. A member of a team should be merged back to the team page before he is considered for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Action Masters per User:Mathewignash. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * delete or merge No independent sources have significant coverage of this particular transformer. It is not notable on its own. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliably sourced coverage to support claim of notability. In-world cruft is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline. The words double punch are quite generic and are not mainly associated with the Transformers fictional character, so I believe that a redirect is not an acceptable option. The article doesn't provide references beyond non-independent of the subject primary and tertiary sources to presume that the content might be better suited for a merge, in my opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (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.