Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximal (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 keep. (Non-admin closure.)  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maximal (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable fictional group of characters. PROD removed after two "sources" added, but these sources only appear to source the plot summary of the show the group appeared in. If they actually discuss the characters, then that needs to be stated.

Also, I'm a little confused how the sources come from Page 871 of a 528 page book and from Page 321 of a 316 page book. I'm not saying the editor made these up but it needs to be clear what these sources are because the article has nothing else to pass notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Google books comes up with different page numbers than amazon.uk. For instance, the Television Encycloedia has 1038 pages. http://books.google.com/books?id=q4UjAQAAIAAJ&q=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&dq=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&hl=en&ei=KUk7TprhL42BsgKM8pHrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA Maybe it's a different edition? Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, thr article is properly sourced in several 3rd party books. It's linked to by numerous articles on Wikipedia, so it's useful as a link, and i don't see how the nominator thinks deleting it would help wikipedia in any way. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 **The above vote carries no weight at all. It is just a textbook example of WP:ITSCRUFT, not to mention the obvious immaturity of someone who has it out for the GB and Trans community. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  - This editor is a blocked sock puppeteer whose opinion should probably be ignored in this debate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The usual Transformers fancruft, weakly attempted sourcing made to toy encyclopedia and guides and fan books doesn't cut it. There are Wikia pages for this stuff...we keep the truly notable ones...Megatron, Optimus, etc...they get the rest.  It is tiring to have the same arguments over the same fucking nonsense over and over and over and over. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my argument doesn't rest on the fact that it is cruft, but rather that it fails notability guidelines due to poor sourcing. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, I don't understand the logic here, a lot of Transformers articles got deleted/redirected to "List of Maximals", so Maximal was important then, but a simple article explaining what a Maximal exactly is "non notable"? That's like having a list of Star Trek characters, but failing to say what Star Trek is! Mathewignash (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep", This article is describing a prominent faction in two very popular television shows and multiple toy lines that ran for several years, are significant to the history of one of the largest toy/television franchises of all time (fast becoming one of the most successful film franchises as well) and are significant to television in general as one of the first wildly successful computer-animated programs. Yes, there's a Transformers Wiki, but if Wikipedia had a policy against duplicating any information that can be found elsewhere then any articles with citations would be deleted instantly instead of it being the other way around. In addition, this is a small page that gives supplementary information on a topic many people (the Transformers fandom is huge and historically significant) find interesting. This is NOT a massive description of every character and their entire backstory. For THAT, you can go to the Transformers wiki because that level of detail WOULD go beyond what Wikipedia is for. Describing a faction in a massive franchise and listing the members thereof does not. Now, from a simple formatting perspective, it also makes sense to give this it's own page. The articles that link to this and the Predacon page (which is far larger) are already VERY LARGE articles. This information is needed, but placing this fictional-universe-significant but not real-world-significant information in the main articles would unnecessarily lengthen them for people uninterested in the fiction. This seems to be a simple case of "Why do people like things I don't like?", which is not grounds for deletion. You've given no good reason for a lack of notability that hasn't been adressed. Transformers is not the only fictional series with articles describing it's factions and it is certainly not the smallest or least notable. If you suggested merging this article with the "autobot" page, that would be more acceptable, but proposing deletion of notable information that can't be found elsewhere on the encyclopedia is ridiculous.99.49.4.226 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This anon IP entry carries no weight at all as none of this even remotely addresses notability concerns raised with this material. We don't keep articles because fans think they are useful. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His points are completely valid though. There are a total of FOUR major factions in the Transformers stories. Autobot, Decepticons, Maximals and Predacons. All are equally notable. Deleting one is, without trying to be insulting, stupid. Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His points are utter nonsense. When determining notability of fictional material, we don't care about the nerdcruft of what factions are the important ones in-universe.  (Please make special note of the in there).  You are either unaware of or purposefully ignore our notaiblity guidelines and our need for sucvh to be reliably sourced and it is getting quite tiring to explain this to you in every damn AfD. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then stop commenting in Afds... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Maybe not a paragon of great editing, but the group described in the article were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges. Wouldn't that put them on par with the notability of fictional groupings such as Syndicate (The X-Files), Dharma Initiative or the Bookhouse Boys? I'll admit that I do have an inclusionist view on things, but I don't believe that because an article contains a lot of cruft, its subject is inherently cruft in and of itself. There's a notable subject to be discussed in there, just so happens that it hasn't been done right yet. Deletion wouldn't solve the actual problem, it'd be cutting off a hand because your nails are dirty. GRAPPLE   X  20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another largely invalid vote that rests on "they're important in-universe" and WP:OTHERCRAP. The Dharma stuff is extensively covered by outside reliable sources; an article for that is a no-brainer.  X-Files is debatable, lots of sources but mostly in-house.  Finally, I am a rabid Twin Peaks fan and even I didn't know there was a separate article for the Bookhouse Boys, that's a little ridiculous and should be deleted or redirected promptly.  We need reliable sources independent of the subject to justify an article. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your attitude to this at all. Yes, articles need reliable sources. However, deleting those without them included simply acts as a barrier towards adding them in future. Articles needing additional sources should be maintenance tagged as such, not culled with the mindset of "not sourced, can't keep it". And I take issue with you deciding my vote is invalid just because you don't agree with my reasoning. GRAPPLE   X  21:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what you think about my attitude; I argue based on established editing policy and guideline, while you rely on variations of "I like it" and vague hand-waving at "oh, there must be sources out there somewhere". These are not acceptable arguments to make at an AfD. If you can't source something, then it does not get an article.  Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise I had to start hauling citations along with me just to be able to register a valid vote, but five minutes with Google has turned up a brief summary of the reception toward the relevant shows, an official 'sourcebook', an overview of the series with reference to the group (and the mention of a DVD featurette which I assume would include production details), and a third-party retrospective. No, I'm not going to track these down, pay for them, and use them for the article. Someone who edits it regularly can if they so choose. Does my vote get to be 'valid' yet? GRAPPLE   X  01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not lie Tarc. Grapple said "were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges" and you say he's arguing that "they're important in-universe" The television series and merchandizing range are REAL WORLD, not "in fiction". Your lies will NOT be allowed to stand. Mathewignash (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling people liars, as you've done here and at another AfD, for disagreeing with you is not acceptable. Neither is canvassing for keep votes. Reyk  YO!  22:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it's inappropriate if it's the truth, Tarc is trying to change the subject to get his way. Grapple commented on "real world" facts and Tarc yelled at him for making "in fiction" remarks. That's a flat out lie in order to try to discount his comments. As for "canvasing", I was neutral in my point of view, and merely informed him that a similar nomination to the one he already voiced his opinion was going on. Mathewignash (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't contact any of the other participants in the discussion, or people who have commented in others. You singled out the Colonel because you know he'll vote "keep". Reyk  YO!  04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathewignash is calling a spade a spade. Because no valid reason exists for deletion, Tarc will just say anything to try to get his/her way, rather than, you know, actually contribute something useful to improve this or any article.  No, s/he is more interested in name-calling, swearing, haranguing everyone who disagrees with him/her.  --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTICE - You may notice the two additional sources added from wired.com and usatoday. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your feel for what it means for something to be "reliably sourced" is off the mark. Wired rattled off a list of bad Transformers, noting that one is a Maximal with the line "The Beast Wars series recast Autobots and Decepticons as the more organic Maximals and Predacons."  That is it.  The USA Today link mentions the word "Maximal" twice in the course of an interview about Beat Wars.  You can't just google the term and pluck out every casual mention and declare "yep, reliably sourced!" Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of reliable is what's off the mark. They are entirely reliable sources third party sources. Length source doesn't make it unreliable. 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where you have a very simple but quite serious problem with competence. We need reliable sources that actually discuss the subject matter, i.e. a source about the Maximals.  Not a tech magazine that uses the word once to talk about an example of a bad Transformer within a list of 12 bad Transfrmers.  Not an interview in a newspaper where the interviewee mentions the name when talking about Beast Wars.  Do you understand this? Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone here is demonstrating "Bias-based incompetence" it's you with your constant belittling attacks on a whole subject, and your constant personal attacks on other editors. [] BTW, it would be nice if you let editors post opinions on the deletion review without remarking that every one that disagrees with you should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So I take it the answer to my last question there is a resounding "no" ? The Wikipedia has thresholds to meet for reliability and sourcing,  They are not black and white or set in stone,m there is always allowance for wiggle room, but no common sense interpretation of our guidelines alows for this tripe to exist in the Wikipedia.  Mathewignash, how many AfDs have you been on the losing end of?  How many of these discussions wind up exactly the same, as you being frustrated and simply refusing to listen to people who show you how these toys do not meet pour guidelines?  Honestly, we could cut and paste these back-and-forths from anyone of the last 100-odd Transformers AfDs.  What exactly are you trying to accomplish by making an argument here that has failed 100 times before? Tarc (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have yet to make any actual coherent argument... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They must be pretty coherent if I've been able to see to it that dozens upon dozens of this junk has been deleted over the last year, eh? BTW, what account has you edited under previous to this IP? Tarc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably A Nobody. Reyk  YO!  04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because if this information is hidden from public view, well, then the Decepticons will have won... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. </S> - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was torn on this at first, because I felt that simply having few sources would mean that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, and would be better off being merged. However, in reviewing the WP:Notability guideline, I found this, under WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."  Considering the level of attention this series and also specifically these Maximals have gotten, it is certainly not a trivial thing, but quite extensive from what I can tell.  Not all notability is conferred by the same means.  We won't always have scholarly papers or extensive news stories, but clearly this has received enough attention that it clearly is notable. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is close to the line, but I believe the issue is that the article is written in in-universe style. If rewritten in the sense of impact on the real world, I believe the concept would pass it. The point is that these are the main characters of a reasonably successful series: Beast Wars, Beast Wars II, Beast Wars Neo, Beast Wars: The Gathering. I think we should have articles on them the same way we have articles on the main characters of other reasonably successful series, such as television shows, books, or games. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There plainly isn't enough independent, third-party coverage of the subject for a standalone article at this time. No prejudice on an eventual re-split if and when Wikipedia's coverage of Transformers ever begins to focus on real-world impact and not just lists of toys and cartoon appearances (good luck with that: Autobot is hardly better than this article right now). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive coverage in the sources. Interesting article that will be useful to fans and students of popular culture. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As per the series, all Maximals are considered to be distinct descendants of their Autobot forebears. Although no indication is made of what precisely this entails, it still makes them quite unique in the Transformers universe. Moreover, between Beast Wars and Beast Machines, these characters lasted for 5 seasons, which is only a few episodes shy of the original series. Since the lead protagonists in the original series have maintained their own page, why not these?--Factchk (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I say keep, considering this is all the Maximals we're talking about. Seriously, I find it doubtful that this is could be non-notable... NotARealWord (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Really, this is a main faction in several Transformers series, like the article Autobot. Even if every single article about an individual Maximal were to be deleted, the article about Maximals in general should stay. J I P  &#124; Talk 17:37, 18 August 2011 (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.