Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironfist (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. even the keep sie agrees policy says delete. I'm happy to userfy if someone wants to transwiki it Spartaz Humbug! 04:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironfist (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non notable Transformer character yet again supported by fansitses as information sources which is unacceptable and a volition of wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A good start to an article with the start of some sources. I'll go look for more. Mathewignash (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mathewignash. Divebomb is not British 09:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Divebomb is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- yet another bad Transformers article "sourced" to fansites. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance. Reyk  YO!  00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wreckers (Transformers) . NotARealWord (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Look, policy supports a delete - there is no significant discussion in reliable independent sources, at least as far as I can see - but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we should keep this regardless. There is obviously a very high level of discussion about ANY Transformers topic in sources that aren't technically reliable - blogs, wikis, et cetera - but are generally reliable as to their fandom, and Transformers articles in general on Wikipedia are actively scrutinised and maintained by an enthusiastic corps of editors.  I don't think there's value to the project in trying to smack these individual character articles down faster than they spring up, especially given that the majority eventually get recreated with sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -


 * 1) How is the closing admin gonna even care about your vote if you admit it's against policy?
 * 2) Why is "it's gonna get recreated with sources anyways" a rationale? It's not like we the people who vote "delete" are against recreating/restoring the article if there are better sources. NotARealWord (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because theoretically policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; i.e., it describes current practice at AfD rather than legislates it. Also because ignore all rules is policy, and because the purpose of ALL of our rules is to create the highest quality encyclopaedia we can, and I believe keeping the article pursues that goal better than deleting it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the article can be good, No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. This isn't even a very important character. Plus, i don't really agree that the "corps of enthusiastic editors" are/have been doing a good job. TF articles have been criticized for being generally terrible. See here and here. Also, this is a bunch of issues with TF articles I generally find. Some of those problems are terribly obvious. So yeah, I don't find your !vote a very good one.
 * That's all right, you don't have to. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True, it's up to the closing admin to decide, anyway. NotARealWord (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance. No sources, no relevance. Pasupgalo (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 03:44, 20 December 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.