Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockdown (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. The "keep" comments do not seriously attempt to address the notability guidelines' inclusion requirements.  Sandstein  17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lockdown (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable characters from a notable television series. It is clear that the show exists. It is clear that these characters exist. — Mythdon 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's WP:V. The topic needs to satisfy WP:N, which it currently fails to do. TTN (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge somewhere. The article's a mess. The slew of unreliable sources are not convincing me that this character has any independent real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mythdon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that Mythdon has not made a valid point, it's sort of pointless cite his argument. TTN (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's many sources show that the character has received attention within the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are currently used in a meaningful way, so they're irrelevant. They cite primary information, so they have no basis in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Some cartoon characters are somewhat obscure characters. Others are quite obviously notable. I feel that Lockdown falls under the obviously notable scope. I'm not going to try to justify an article to individuals who seem to have a negligible knowledge of the topic at hand. Also, the lazy nature of the nomination with a seemingly 20-second google check makes me feel that it might not even justify a response. Bad nomination overall that I consider to be time-wasting. Blatant keep. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a proper argument. The article has no proper sources to satisfy WP:N, so it is not currently notable by Wikipedia standards. Your own personal standards of notability are irrelevant. TTN (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this article was created almost ten years ago over two dozen established editors have edited the article and have not indicated any notability concerns. Choosing to avoid doing at least a little research on the topic makes it sound like you do not respect you fellow wikipedians. That in itself invalidates your opinions somewhat from my point of view. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with anything. Pretty much none of the Transformers articles follow this site's guidelines. That in particular shows a lack of care from those involved in improving these pages to any reasonable standard. That in ten years nobody has bothered to improve these articles shows that they are basically relics from a different Wikipedia, better suited to Wikia. The most well-intentioned person can create the worst article, but taking their feelings into account is pointless beyond showing them how to actually make an article without being overly critical. Considering that this is not a new article created by such a person, it hardly matters. TTN (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that this article was created before google search purged much of their archives so it was definitely easily (demonstrably) notable for at least 7 years. So current search returns are a bit biased against Lockdown because he's an older character of this franchise. Nonetheless, as an avid transformers fan since the 90,s I can assure you that this article is not only notable but easily so. This nomination was done too hasty.Pwolit iets (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then by all means provide sources showing it. The biggest problem with these articles is that people seem to conflate not-notable with not-important. The character may well be quite notable within the frame-work of the franchise, but that means nothing in terms of notability on Wikipedia. There are either sources or not, nothing else. If there are no sources, it doesn't mean the topic isn't important. It just means it has no place having an article. TTN (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I frequently come accross articles that have zero (yes literally zero) sources. Some of them also have very high view counts. That means that many people are aware that the article is poorly sourced. But the reason I avoided sourcing them and other people did likewise is because the frequenters of the article think its common knowledge; i.e. non-controversial info. Therefore there's no realy need to prove it. Its akin to asking someone to sources whether cats exist. No need. Why? Because its common knowledge that they do. Thats why its preferable for nominators to stick with subject areas they are proficient at. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has standards. If those standards aren't properly applied to all articles, it's because there are millions of articles and only so many people to actively edit them. I don't believe there will ever be a time where even 10% of articles even meet the proper criteria due to that. That doesn't really matter though. This fails to meet those standards in its current form and nobody has shown proof that it can meet those standards. I have every right to challenge the article's existence in that case. TTN (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case there is always the (imo preferable) option of placing tags on the article to encourage improvement, rather than purging/obliterating. Pwolit iets (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Josh Milburn's comments. Does not appear to have any independent real-world notability. I am not convinced by any of the arguments to keep the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then Redirect if needed, because there are been consensus there's no inherited notability confirmed for its own article simply because of the series itself; there's nothing to suggest we can improve this to the levels of accepting. SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- per Josh Milburn and Swister. There is nothing to indicate any kind of real-world notability. If the best the keep side can do is WP:ITEXISTS and obnoxious inaccurate tirades against delete !voters, then it's clearly a hopeless case. Reyk  YO!  10:57, 19 September 2016 (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.