Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Slick (Transformers) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oil Slick (Transformers)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject does not seem to be notable NotARealWord (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to have pleanty of activity and not badly done. This was nominated for deletion 2 years ago and the result was to keep it. Please continue. Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the result was "no consensus", likely because only 2 people commented on the AfD over a 2 week period. Let's keep the exaggerated claims to a minimum.    Snotty Wong   communicate 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep due to significant coverage in independent reliable sources that establish notability.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) striking - user blocked  pablo 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * weak delete what is it about anyways? "several characters" granted fictional cahracets do somehow warrant an article, but what is this on its own? Can it be merged into merchandise for transformers or somethign of the sort?(Lihaas (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC));
 * Comment - Subject has to meet Notability criteria to have a page of its own. The old AfD resulted in "no consensus", not "keep". Anyway, "article is written well" is not a valid reason to keep. See Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions for other reasons that may be non-valid. NotARealWord (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with NotARealWord. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, though I suppose it could be merged to a suitable "List of minor characters" type article if one exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Found in various animated shows, comic books, and toy lines.  D r e a m Focus  23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete existing is not a reason for an article, if RS are not writing about this, why are we? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   babble 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources = no article.   Snotty Wong   babble 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - due to the lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of notability, lack of sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacking in sources to establish notabilitty, just naother trans character (there seem to be alot og them).Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that... there are no reliable sources in the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article's been around for quite a while. There have been lot's of Transformers-related articles created and left up for a while despite how notability had never been properly established. NotARealWord (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources exist to WP:verify notability. It is frustrating that people are tagging these unfixable articles for rescue when they know there are no third-party sources that address the rationale for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 2 September 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.