Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorponok


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. We generally hold that articles on fictional subjects require substantive coverage that is more than plot detail: as such I do not find the "keep" votes here very strong, and there is consensus to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Scorponok

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doubt this meets WP:GNG, not every Transformer deserves its own article, see WP:POKEMON. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Huon has mass nominated Transformers articles clearly without any BEFORE (based on the number of nominations and the fact that they nominated Arcee which just had an AFD in June).★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment concur; a quick check of GNews on a couple of noms brings up some hits (admittedly not top quality) but that's Before 101. @Grandmaster Huon should not "doubt" that it meets the standard but should check first. It feels like lots of pages are getting nominated lately for being shit and in need of vast improvement, which isn't what AfDs are for. The subject is a magnet for fancruft and it doesn't help that there are hundreds of versions of many characters but again, not what AfDs are for. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to nominate Optimus Prime for that same reason, not because of notability, but rather quality, thank you for telling me how to properly improve article quality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is meant to be the sum of all human knowledge and the english wikipedia article count is the largest of all wikipedias, but the vast majority of articles are mostly useless stubs, wikipedia should focus on quality, not quantity.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, but a lot of GAs are mostly nonessential stuff like TV shows, movies and video games that will only be useful to a minority of people, wikipedia should be focusing on getting all vital articles GA or higher. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is they get called away from editing when people do crap like this. You're not exactly contributing edits about essential subjects yourself.
 * More seriously, you do not get to dictate what people should and shouldn't do on Wikipedia beyond what is set out by the various guidelines in place for this sort of things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation,  and Toys.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep. Quick Gnews hits:
 * - https://www.cbr.com/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-scorponok-introduction-possibility/
 * - https://movieweb.com/beast-wars-every-predacon-ranked/
 * - https://www.ign.com/articles/hasbro-announces-galvatron-predacon-scorponok-and-the-autobot-ark-upcoming-transformers-war-for-cybertron-figures
 * - https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/11/scorponok-joins-transformers-forged-to-fight/
 * Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But these sources are not enough to justify Scorpinok his own article, if you believe your case, then write a GA level alternate article for Scorpinok in your own sandbox. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hah, it doesn't work like that. But good try. It isn't a case of a GA level article or a redirect are the only options available.
 * Tell you what, you do a GA level article on Hookjaw and I'll do one on Scorpinok. Whoever the heck that is. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How does Hookjaw pass GNG? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you need to ask you shouldn't be nominating. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 😳 Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * CBR piece mentions him few times but I don't seeit going beyond a plot summary. Movieweb is a crappy listicle. IGN is a press release for a toy. flickeringmyth is... I am not even sure how to describe how bad this is, reads like a social media comment, fails SIGCOV and likely RS. Given no reception/analysis in the article, and if those are the best sources found, this is an easy delete or prefered, redirect (I like SOFTDELETE). Nothing here or in the article suggests this character meets GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION as there are multiple variants of the character mentioned in various media. Most of the comments here are disappointing WP:ADHOMINEM arguments, which aren't proper for AfD. Ignoring all the arguments to the person and focusing solely on the character themselves, the sources presented here as supposedly definitive evidence are extremely weak and insufficient to pass WP:GNG. CBR, in particular, writes about almost everything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking the high road while putting words like "supposedly definitive evidence" in people's mouths is a bold move, certainly. I also love the way a source can be disregarded because it "writes about almost anything". What's the point in using Gnews as an option for sources if people turn around and say "but not those sources"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Valnet sources are widely known as content farms, it's telling that the main source for every Transformer article nominated for deletion is a CBR one. Content farms, by definition, have no editorial discretion and write about as many pieces of fictional content as possible from a popular franchise. Using them to prove notability goes against the entire concept that "sources will only write about something if they believe it is notable" because a lot of it is SEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the case of CBR, isn't it frequently used as a source to begin with? It's still allowed on the site to my knowledge, and I've seen it used on Wikipedia articles before. While I've mostly been sticking out of properly voting in these Transformers discussions, the CBR article provided for Scorponok does have something to say about the character, so I'd say it's viable, in this instance. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Using it as a source is different than using it as the basis for a standalone article. People generally agree content farms are accurately researched, just not indicative of anything special about the subject in particular, because their job is literally to write the most possible about X or Y franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean, that makes sense. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, Scorponok has had many different roles in the Tranformers franchise such as the comics, American and Japanese cartoons, and live action movies and the sources listed above are good as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your sentence above provides a rationale for keeping this. Are you saying WP:ITSINTERESTING, perhaps? Or WP:ITSIMPORTANT? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A good place to search for character sources is GBooks, but here I'm finding plot summaries with Scorponok's name included. There's not enough I've found to establish meeting GNG. There is a one-page database-y entry in this book, though. (It's also funny that the article references [two https://www.deviantart.com/transformers-mosaic/art/THE-STING-OF-SCORPONOK-93734755] photos.) SWinxy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2023 (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.