Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverbolt (Beast Wars)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Silverbolt (Beast Wars)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Horrible non-free violation as well. Macr86 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable fictional character whose sources are easily found. In fact I see several third party sources on this page already! Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh.....Keep There are multiple third-party sources present, so your claim about "only being sourced to primary sources and thus failing the GNG" is wrong. And, yes, there are several character lists that this could be merged to: List of Maximals and List of Beast Wars characters. Divebomb is not British 10:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Divebomb is apparently a sockpuppet of Editor XXV and is now blocked. NotARealWord (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge if anyone cares enough. No real encyclopedic content. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I point you to WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Divebomb is not British 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem:

"...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged"

- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . NotARealWord (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that doesn't make the reasoning for deletion any more valid. J Milburn made an invalid arguement as to why something should be deleted. Divebomb merely pointed it out to him in an unrecommended manner. They are not the same thing.Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What gave you the idea that I'm using that to support deletion? I haven't !voted to delete yet. Just pointing out something important when using sections of the "arguments to avoid" page. NotARealWord (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - History? Can I get a short list of Transformers you voted "KEEP" on? However, prove me wrong if you want. I'd be happy to see you improve an article and vote keep on it. Mathewignash (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should I vote keep on anything that doesn't deserve it? (Not talking about this article) Plus, if you're gonna mention people's history, there's the ridiculous things you gave a "keep" !vote for. Like this one for example. NotARealWord (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to go into history I would note that J Milburn has a history of problems trying to delete perfectly good pages such as this one 76.19.251.152 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly good? See that comment by sgeureka below. NotARealWord (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one said he didn't also delete pages that need to be deleted as well. Good catch on that Divebomb by the way. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that article my reasoning was that it was a stub under development. What's wrong with that argument?Mathewignash (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "that article" you mean Primon, there was basically nothing to develop. The character is a really vague concept and isn't likely to even become notable within the next several years. NotARealWord (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Nobody has brought up any reasons to delete this page (albeit invalid ones). As Mathewignash said above, there's already third party sources in this. This casts serious doubt on the claim that it is non-notable.--Piast93 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to a relevant article. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as per WP:NOTABLE. Many links are broken; others are to fans' personal websites, sites and books on the cartoon, rather than the character (and which aren't third-party sources anyway), etc. One source is seriously just a picture of the back of a toy package. --Cúchullain t/ c 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles like thes are neither reliable or independent. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not EVERY external link has to be a third party source and you know it. Why are you pointing out the non-third party sources and IGNORING the ones that are? Mathewignash (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most sources (Seibertron.com, unicron.us, Angelfire) aren't really reliable. Merge/Redirect seems a good option. NotARealWord (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Mostly plot (WP:NOT) and release information on the toys. No separate non-stub article possible with the following currently present sources, therefore merge per WP:AVOIDSPLIT: Dead, Fansite, Picture gallery, Doesn't mention "Silverbolt", Picture gallery, Dead, Amazon-like fanboy reviews, Non-independant, okay, Fansite, a Print source for the voice actor's name, an in-universe Print source, a print source for the toy. – sgeureka t•c 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To address one of your issues, the link to the page on Jetstorm that doesn't mention "Silverbolt", if you read the article, you will note that for a time Silverbolt went by the name Jetstorm. So this is an article talking about him. Mathewignash (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, a lot of them don't seem to pass the reliability criteria. NotARealWord (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * It would be much easier to establish a consensus if both sides enumerates the sources and summaried why they considered them to be reliable/unreliable for the purpose of establishing notability. Right now the delete side say they don'r cut the mustard and the keep side say they do. We actually need to understand why to work out the consensus here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete NOn notable in the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Silverbolt - Sources provided are primary to Hasbro or are fansites. Reliable sources is the name of the game, and they just aren't here. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You want to merge this.....to a redirect? Do the research before you !vote, please. --The Needle (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Silverbolt refers to the Aerialbot leader, an entirely different character unrelated to this one. NotARealWord (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps he means the deleted page for Silverbolt, which was also lacking enough notability. Maybe we should author a single page for both Silverbolts, with all the citations on both, and see if THAT has enough notabiliity! Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No way. Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. NotARealWord (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides being heroic Transformers named Silverbolt who are the team flyers in their series, and being silver, and being made on Earth in the second season of their series... wait a minute... which is which again? Mathewignash (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on now, G1 Silverbolt was afraid of heights, he led a team of sentient jets, was a combiner, and had no love interest. Neither were actually the "team flyers" in their series, when BW silverbolt debuted other Maximals could already fly, and G1 Silverbolt was part of a team of flyers. Neither of them were built on earth. NotARealWord (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Silverbolt was built on Earth in the Marvel Comics. Mathewignash (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just one silverbolt, not both. Still, it is no more appropriate to cover the Fuzor and the aerialbot in the same article than it is to cover Megatron (Beast Era) with the original Megatron. Indeed, the Megatrons have more in common than the two Silverbolts honestly. NotARealWord (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely do not merge to Aerialbots (which Silverbolt redirects to). The Fuzor in Beast Wars has nothing whatsoever in common with the Aerialbots. J I P  &#124; Talk 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just added a citation from Lee's Action Figure and Toy Review magazine where they reviewed the figure for Silverbolt. Mathewignash (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more against merging with the Aerialbot leader. Won't really complain so much if it was closed as keep. NotARealWord (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is if this one ends up being as KEEP, then he's the only Transformers character named Silverbolt who would have a page on Wikipedia, so he should probably be moved to Silverbolt (Transformers). Then once he's there I would probably add a mention of the Generation 1 character, or at least a link to the Aerialbots article. Mathewignash (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect (e.g. to List of Beast Wars characters). WP:INUNIVERSE treatment, sparsely sourced, and then only apparently to fan publications -- thus WP:FANCRUFT. No indication of any wider notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The books cited are NOT fan publications, they are legitmate books available on amazon.com and at your local library system. Mathewignash (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are publications aimed at a fan audience. And "available on amazon.com and at your local library system" does not necessarily mean a scholarly or reliable source. I would suggest that The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition is neither. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you would be wrong. It's a reliable source. Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A single comment is not a WP:CONSENSUS, and the "lead writer" of the "Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club newsletter" is not an independent source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness then he wrote that book 6 years BEFORE he was hired by Fun Publications. You have to judge a source by when it was written, and it was written by someone who didn't work for Fun Publications. Mathewignash (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added another book source today. Mathewignash (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Get this Transformers fancruft off of Wikipedia already. It's not notable, fails WP:GNG.  Either delete it or transwiki it to the Transformers wiki.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That website you pointed to is inactive. The community that uilt it up until 5000+ articles left wikia and put up a new site on a different server. Plus, it's article format would mean that it should not accept Wikipedia's articles. The new site also won't accept Wikipedia articles. NotARealWord (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They already have an article there. http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Silverbolt_(BW) And its still active. 7,452 pages on their wiki.  Thousands of people a month still visit this article  on Wikipedia though, and no telling how many have seen it total over the years.  But Wikipedia has unfortunately changed.  The evil snotty elitist deletionists have won.  Why just nominate all remaining Transformer articles at once, and kill them off like that, instead of wasting time picking them off one at a time or in small groups?    D r e a m Focus  01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an opinion on this article, feel free to voice it. Mathewignash (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, if you actually check, transformers.wikia.com is not growin fast enouh compared to all the new Transformers material coming out. Compare to the much more complete tfwiki.net. More than 11,000 articles and an active editorship that usually know what they're doing. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being unaware of the most active and up to date compendium on knowledge of the Transformers. Transwiki it wherever you want, I don't care.  It just doesn't belong here.  Trust me, I know.  After all, I'm just one of the many unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists trying to destroy yet another decent legitimate article.  Snotty Wong   talk 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't think there is any place to transwiki this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Its not encylopedic! I believe we should erase every single article that wouldn't impress all the snotty elistists. I want Wikipedia to be taken seriously by the snobs, instead of just being loved and used by millions of common folk. I ask myself, is this something the Harvard graduates working at a major big city newspaper would like? What about other members of high society? Its not in style unless the fashion magazines tell us it is, and you can't be seen wearing something that simply isn't something they personally consider tasteful at the moment. We should never try to think for ourselves, and form our own opinions, just do whatever the popular kids might want us to do. Mozart fanatic 77 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  Comment by sockpuppet of banned user struck out - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements by Mathewignash. Nice long interesting article, it now has 14 references! FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and every single one either primary, a toy review or a fansite. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with a toy review as a source for an article about a toy line fictional character? Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr ... because it's an article about a fictional character, not a toy. You need sources about the fictional character, and at the moment there isn't a single decent one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comment above. Let tfwiki have this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- all the sources are useless. They are either broken links, fansites, toy catalogues or puffery put out by the producers of Transformers. The fact that someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to find evidence of notability, unfortunately, demonstrates the exact reverse if this is the best they've been able to find. Reyk  YO!  01:52, 29 December 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.