Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gutcruncher


 * 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   Courcelles 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Courcelles 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Gutcruncher

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to List of Decepticons Mathewignash (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fancruft, sourced to fansites, no real-world notability to be found, fails WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Mathewignash (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources independent of the subject that establish notability for this fictional thing apart from the fictional world it inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 9 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) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- no convincing assertion of notability, no coverage in reliable independent sources. Reject calls for a procedural keep; Claritas's behaviour was appalling but there have been several good-faith votes to delete, so that is no longer an option. Reyk  YO!  07:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just put in some good refs.
 * A one-line passing mention at a comic book site of dubious reliability, and a toy catalogue? These are good references? I'd hate to see what you'd consider a bad one then. Reyk  YO!  05:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What -I- added was entirely credible worthwhile information. Lots42 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Comicvine is a site that I could register at and write reviews for if I wanted, so citing it is really no better than citing Wikipedia. The other source is a toy catalogue. Reyk  YO!  12:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what comicvine is. I didn't add it. The toy catalogue is perfectly valid, it was done by a third party and has much information about the characters. Lots42 (talk) 20:13, 12 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.