Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laser Rods


 * 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   redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. The consensus is to redirect to Transformers: Generation 2, however in deference to the presented arguments, I am going to add a hatnote to that article referring people to Active laser medium --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Laser Rods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

The article lacks any kind of independent information to assert notability and is full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to laser rods. Make that page a disambiguation. Then have one link directed to Transformers: Generation 2. Toyline is notable, sub-group of said toyline is not. Clear-cut case for a redirect.--hkr Laozi speak  01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Transformers: Generation 2 per User:Hongkongresident. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. Mathewignash (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Transformers: Generation 2. However, I question your OR claim. Let's go through the article.


 * "The Laser Rods are a sub-group of Transformers toys released as part of their Generation 2 line. Members include both Autobots and Decepticons. They were also called Illuminators in some parts of Europe." No original research there.


 * "Members include:
 * Electro
 * Jolt - released under the name Hot Rod in some parts of Europe.
 * Sizzle
 * Volt - Released under the name Autovolt in Japan. " Again, no original research there.


 * "All members featured great amounts of articulation at the time, as well as clear plastic swords that could be lighted by small light emitting diodes." Not seeing it here either.


 * So, uh, try not to confuse unsourced statements with original research? --Divebomb (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term as used on Wikipedia is sometimes confusing. Original research for our purposes doesn't just refer to stuff like "I did an experiment in my basement that proves onions can feel pain!", it also means inserting material that you know (or think you know) rather than what you can verify through reliable sources. So, in other words, if I wanted to say in an article that GI Joe is 12" tall, I couldn't just get one and measure it with a ruler, I'd have to find a book or other reliable source that states the same fact and then cite that.  You're technically correct that unsourced material isn't necessarily original research, as the editor may have had reliable sources but forgot to cite them, but for practical purposes we can assume that unsourced material like that in the article is probably original research and should be removed unless a reliable source can be found quickly. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable source materials.  Not found on CNN, Times of London, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, that grew old a long time ago. Is "not found on " the only argument you can ever provide? J I P  &#124; Talk 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "laser rod"s are a real world item with nothing to do with toys. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete never, ever, ever redirect a real-world thing to a fictional cartoon article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, guys, that's a page about a toyline and its related promotional materials. --Divebomb (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and redirecting something real to something fictional is irresposible and stupid. That would be like redirecting "gun" to Han Solo's blaster pistol or "castle" to Castle Greyskull.  We don't do that.  Not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have another idea. Perhaps we could merge the content somewhere, but leave the page as a redirect to Laser rod? --Divebomb (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, merging without redirecting removes attribution and thus violates the GFDL. Besides, there's nothing reliably sourced enough to merge anyway. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can move the history to a history subpage, which is viable under GFDL and has been done before on Wikipedia, you can redirect elsewhere, but leave merge notices on the talk page, which is also viable under GFDL (copied) and has been done before on Wikipedia. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can, yes, but there's nothing reliably sourced in the article to merit such a treatment. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever said this was a page about a real-world thing? Check the incoming links. Do you see any incoming links from non-Transformers articles? You could perhaps be right if this article was named laser rods, but it's not. It's named Laser Rods with a capital R, which alone makes it an unlikely search term for a real-world item. It's not like the article semi-automatic weapon is located at Semi-Automatic Weapon. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is there has not been one single source which is reliable. To WP:VERIFY this article notability or is likely bar an unreliable fansite. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with the question about whether this is a real-world or a fictional thing? I agree that the article is completely unsourced, but all that concerns is whether the article should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the difference between "Laser Rods" and "laser rods". J I P  &#124; Talk 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with JIP, but I can see why Starblind's concerned. However, I still don't support leaving the article as a redlink. How about a compromise... a disambiguation?--hkr Laozi speak  13:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete an article severly lacking in sources. 80.40.144.68 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Allen   for   IPv6  18:13, 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.