Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Energon (power source)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fictional substance that fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Unlikely in the extreme that independent reliable sources have covered this. As an aside, what's with all the terrible Transformers articles lately, did somebody copy-paste a fan wiki into Wikipedia or something? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nominated another Transformer article today (Alice (Transformers)), but I just found this one while looking through a list of fictional elements. They're all from around 2006. Claritas § 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep major fictional element throughout the various franchises. Current article is lousy, but there's no reason this can't be improved and sourced. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The slight difficulty with sourcing this article is that there's a complete absence of independent coverage in reliable sources....Claritas § 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep as article passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:04, 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) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked. pablo 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Where are they? There are no sources WHATSOEVER in the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to main Transformers article, there's no reliable sources here. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete complete absence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, certainly none that would elevate this fictional MacGuffin to independent, out-of-universe notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a number of references to the article. Please look over them and refactor your votes or (if you are keeping your vote the same), perhaps, your arguments. Silver  seren C 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've added junk. After review I reiterate delete. Let me explain. As of this version of the article "citations" 1, 7 and 8 are non-independent and in-universe. Citation 2 (the "anime encyclopedia") apparently mentions the word "energon" on two of its 860 pages as a plot element of the Transformers universe. No in depth consideration of the thing in itself in a real world context. Number 3, Gelman's 400 page book "The Essential Child" has a one sentence mention of "energon" as a type of "life force" or essence in the context of -- the mythology and plotting of the Transformers universe. Number 4 is so bad it makes me want to laugh, or cry. The book "Universalities: Webster's quotations, facts and phrases" is a completely indiscriminate compendium of every published scrap that touches on either the word "universalities" or related words or concepts. As Icon Group, the marketting firm responsible, explains about the book -- "The entries cover all parts of speech (noun, verb, adverb or adjective usage) as well as use in modern slang, pop culture, social sciences (linguistics, history, geography, economics, sociology, political science), business, computer science, literature, law, medicine, psychology, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology and other physical sciences. This "data dump" results in many unexpected examples for universalities, since the editorial decision to include or exclude terms is purely a linguistic process." This text (and there's a whole series touching on other words and concepts in identical format} is created to be used as a primary research tool for the writing of the actual "Webster's Quotations" according to Icon. In this instance, the book deems that something in the Transformers books called "Angolmois energy" touches on the issue of "Universality." The three sentence entry briefly mentions this MacGuffin "is even more powerful than Energon" and that's it. So number 4 is an epic fail. Number 5 is a brief article about Transformer fans and toy collectors in Malaysia that notes that an "energon" toy line is available for purchase. Number 6 is a negative review of a DVD called "Transformer Energon: The Ultimate Collection" hosted at the DVD Verdict, an unpaid and almost anyone can edit DVD sales and review website (not quite as open as Wikipedia, you have to email them and ask to become a "judge" in their parlance. But just like Wikipedia, they let you write about new DVD releases for free). I understand you'll never understand why none of these "sources" are suitable. I just want the 15 minutes of my life i just wasted on this nonesense back. (Adding: I now understand Deor's point below about it being a mirror. The entry in the icon book is tagged "WP" which means a Wikipedia article was the source. The "books" are also generated by an automated web-crawler, as this makes clear Philip M. Parker. I hope silver now understands why he should never offer up any of those Icon books as a source again. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Silver seren's sources all appear to be either non-independent (licensed products), passing mentions, or inexplicable (how can the cited page of Gelman's "The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought" be construed as supporting anything in the paragraph to which it's attached?). One was a citation of a printed WP mirror, which I've deleted per WP:CIRCULAR. There's not nearly enough to satisfy WP:N here. Deor (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Licensed products" are, by definition, independent: They're not made by the same company, but another one who's seen fit to put out products relevant to the original creation. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not independent as sources because they're marketting something to sell it under license -- a license they pay for, either for up front cash or profit sharing. That makes them business partners of the license holder, not dispassionate independent third parties. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Licensed products are the diametric opposite of independent.  And they aren't sources of information either, they are promotional material or merchandising.  Even if we assume that a licensed book is an appropriate source of information, the act of licensing can vary between relatively hands off to near direct control.  But either way we are talking about a means to divy up a revenue stream, not a serious attempt to review or investigate a subject. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bali Ultimate's rationale. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali Utimate's moment of epic win. Reyk  YO!  08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali ultimate. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali Ultimate. Total lack of third party sources that can WP:verify notability of this empty noun beyond the notability of Transformers overall. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete although destructive and unstable, and taking the form of dark purple crystals that can visibly grow several feet in a few seconds and which can be used to corrupt Cybertron machines, this is not notable. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can see no reason logic in keeping this article up after looking at this discussion. NotARealWord (talk) 19:31, 6 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.