Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowl (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   redirect to List of Autobots. With any merger from history subject to editorial consensus. That outcome seems to best reflect the tenor of the discussion.  Sandstein  18:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Prowl (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourcing for this toy consists of catalogs, in-universe guides, and blogs. Not a notable entity, though perhaps a redirect to somewhere is warranted. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 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)
 * Colonel, I take offense at your "speedy" dismissal. And I could ask you--54 sources? What kind, sir? This is a YouTube video of a dancing robot toy, from the manufacturer. This is a bunch of pictures on a fansite. This is also a bunch of pictures on a fansite--and one wonders whether linking to those pictures isn't a copyright violation. (Perhaps, who is experienced in these matters, can shed some light on that.) No, show me acceptable published references. As for these in-universe guidebooks, we know that existence does not equal notability. Being listed in one of those books, then, doesn't mean anything for notability on Wikipedia, since those books by definition include every single character, toy, and whatnot, so being listed in one of them means nothing. (You know we're talking about animated characters and plastic toys, right?) Besides, notability is not inherited: that something is a Transformer does not mean it's notable. It's just like with every other subject: notability needs to be proven by in-depth discussion in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your 54 sources aren't independent or reliable. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * per 's ping I thought I would comment. I am familiar with with Wikipedia's non-free media policy. The article in question pushes that with excessive non-free files. There is a distinct lack reliable third party sources. Those sources are sub par at best. I will note that I really dont have the time to analyze all the sources for copyright infringement, especially because fair use may allow for liberal usage in some cases, however there are several obvious copyright violations. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/tf/books/sticker/return/return.html is one example, this is a scan of a coloring book in its entirety (as far as I can tell). Werieth (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to a list of characters, there is zero notability outside the fan universe, multiple copyright violations which are being used as sources, multiple other sources that are either borderline violations or have zero academic value and are 100% fan generated content. Given the issues I cannot support keeping the article as is. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Autobots is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as having zero real-world notability. The "sources" are quite frankly a joke and to suggest that the toy is notable because the article includes links to fan pictures of the toy is laughable. Other stellar sources include works of fiction in which one iteration or another of the character is used. The character exists, but existence is not notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Autobots. This article depends on fan-published sources, comprehensive guides, and other sources which can not establish notability.  Deletion is acceptable as a fallback, but I think a merge or redirect is probably in order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources listed for this piece of trash article are not reliable.  They are mere fanboy zines.  No real coverage in the Washington Post, Der Spiegel, etc.  The pro-Transformers lobby should be stopped. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a quick look and immediately find that the Prowl incident ... was widely reported in the Washington Post back in the day. Your trash talk seems to be false. Warden (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * michaelandchrissy.com is not a reliable source and the linked story seems to be about a server farm. Nothing that sugests the toy is notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. TTN (talk) 17:12, 30 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.