Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlock


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Grimlock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fictional character does not meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- I'd rather not delete major characters like this while there's still so many obscure ones not yet nominated (like Fractyl). If even this deserves deletion, than someone should get rid of articles on most of the individual Power Rangers and a whole lot of other stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-If this has to get deleted, I think then (almost) every individual G.I. Joe character should have it's article deleted. NotARealWord (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment-Maybe some but a good number of the Major ones like Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) and Storm Shadow (G.I. Joe) have good independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - The Stormshadow page references a printed guide to GI Joe as a source. There are guides to Transformers like that, but I've always been told they are NOT conisdered good third party sources. If I can quote a Simon Furmon DK guide or other Transformers guidebook, a lot of Transformers articles will get tons of sources REAL quick! Can I use them? Mathewignash (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Maybe every other Dinobot should get deleted. NotARealWord (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- I am honestly on the fence with this one maybe a merge with Dinobots is better because I found two good sources which I am going to add to Dinobots. But not enough to justify a solo article for Grimlock. The only respectable article thats not a fansite about Grimlock so far it this Dwanyewest (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - per my same logic with the Bumblebee AFD. BOZ (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - even though the USA comic book writers actually had Grimie as Autobot leader (for a few issues). Still scratching my head on that one. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly notable character in the anime and various comic book series. Nice article, nothing gained by destroying it.  WP:IAR If a rule interferes with you improving Wikipedia, ignore it.  The notability guidelines are just suggestions anyway, no one ever voted on them, nor has the Wikipedia foundation made any rulings.   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, for many of the above reasons and of course because Grimlock King! Mathewignash (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Mathewignash (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dinobots - Again, in-universe importance does not confer real-world notability. Trim that absurdly-long plot details from the Dinobots article, and have a paragraph or two at most on each one.  A redir from Grimlock to the appropriate sub-section would be fine. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added a good book citation to the article, which should help extablish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Relist later if necessary. Loads of others that make better deletion candidates. NotARealWord (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep as a sockpuppet nomination by . No prejudices against renomination after a week to give time for the other butt-load of Transformers AfDs to worth themselves through, which may give guidance on what to do with this article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:07, 9 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.