Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Groundshaker (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable Gobots article. Fails GNG and all wikipedian standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedurial Keep - This page isn't about a gobot, and the nominator seems to be oblivious.Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called a joke, humans have been known to do them from time to time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Does it really matter whether it's a Gobot? J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Poor notability and sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- no real notability asserted or demonstrated, sourcing is very poor. The creator and defender of this article really needs to learn the importance of proper sourcing. Reyk  YO!  22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I found a source . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete apparently a comics-only character, not notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The same holds as for this Razorclaws(?) thing, except in this case not even the fans seem to consider it that notable. Or is it just more recent? Anyway, we don't need an article on red 2x4 Lego bricks, or on individual Lego sets, and we don't have such articles. It's a pity, actually, because I would like to read them all. But then it isn't, because they are simply not notable and we must draw the line somewhere. There are special wikis for this kind of thing. Either take it there, or at least cover many of these things together in a list, giving each a paragraph or so. That way it should be much easier to find a source or two that establishes notability. Hans Adler 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to pretend I nominated it if it makes you feel better. Unless there's a big change, it'll end up deleted, there's not really any reason to drag it out. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The one source find above appears to demonstrate existance, not notability. Mathewignash - attempting to end the deletion process for two different procedural reasons is unlikely to be as effective as bringing forward good reasons why the article should be kept. --Korruski (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Redirect to Micromasters - Not really notable, but should be redirected to that page. --Divebomb (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that page should exist, either. It has only one reference, and without seeing that it's hard to form an opinion. According to Amazon it's directed to children of age 9–12, and the reviews are not promising. Hans Adler 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the group article Micromasters. The character is not independently notable in any Transformers series that it appeared in. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment He was the #2 protaganist in the Dreamwave Micromasters comic book series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 21 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.