Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailstorm (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. Courcelles 00:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hailstorm (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

The only "sourced" material is too a long discredited fansite to assert its notability and is full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Decepticons. Also, I'm not seeing the original research you speak of. --Divebomb (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. No major coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Le Monde, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable toy, no mentions or references in reliable sources, just the usual tfw2005.com listing of in-universe data. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, extremely unlikely ny reliable sources exist. Article doesn't mention any media appearances, so I assume this is a toy-only character. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hailstorm never did anything important. Redirecting to "List of Decepticons" isn't really helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal. There are a lot of Transformers articles, due to the large number of characters involved in the fiction and the multiple continuity changes/reboots the series has experienced.  I suspect that a Pokemon-style solution is the way forward, condensing articles into lists in the main and preserving and developing the most notable characters into well-supported articles.  Doing so is outside the scope of the per-article approach of AFD.  Regardless of whether there is any initiative to open an RFC or project on the issue, I support a redirect of this nomination to the appropriate list, in accordance with the Pokemon solution.  Although I disagree with the label of "original research" here, this nomination is not troubled in the manner of other recent Transformers AFDs where I (and others) have argued for closure on procedural grounds. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So, basically, you just suggested the same thing I did, but in about four times as many words. --Divebomb (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Allen   for   IPv6  18:07, 30 October 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.