Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironhide


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironhide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references but in-universe guides and toy catalogs, so no kind of notability is established. No surprise then that this article contains nothing more than plot (OR) and details about dimensions of toys and such. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The page has 54 sources and the nomination is quite unconvincing in its airy dismissal of these. This seems to be a blatantly frivolous nomination without a trace of due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You miscounted. There are 52 references; perhaps you simply copied this from another AfD. The same objection applies: 18 of those "sources" are of this kind--pages on a fansite. This is a reliable source? A picture on another fansite? Please,, explain to me how that "source" verifies that something was "remolded into Ratchet", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Need I go on? This is explicitly a fansite. This (now dead--and "Kraftbrands" is accepted here as a reliable source?) supposedly verifies that the thing has lots of pieces. But it's dead and unreliable. Well, I could go on, but I think the point is made: there are no reliable, independent sources, just blogs and fansites and in-universe books (which list all these things because they're part of the universe, and so don't contribute to notability). Drmies (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 52 in-line citations and 2 book sources in the bibliography. 52+2=54.  If we look at the first of the citations, that's a reference to an article in IGN which ranks the subject as the third best Autobot.  This seems fine as coverage.  Warden (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Autobots is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination is inaccurate as of my review. It talks about reception, movie adaptations, and others, and has well more than enough sourcing to meet the GNG.  Once the GNG is met, additional questionable or self-published sources don't magically harm notability. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2013 (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.