Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slag (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   merge to Dinobots. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Slag (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disputed prod (though no reason for the dispute was stated). Another Transformers character of unclear notability. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge to an appropriate aggregate article, if such a one exists). "Sources" are either in-universe or trivial and do not sustain a full article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Dinobots. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dinobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least Merge to Dinobots. Notable MAJOR characters in a major TV series. Also, wasn't there some real-world scandle about his name being a dirty word in the UK? They had to change his name and all in the new series to Snarl. I don't suppose anyone can find an article about that to cite? I'd say upsetting parents by an offensive name counts as effecting the real world though. Mathewignash (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There was no scandal, just Hasbro realizing that the name was a dirty word and changing it. Simple as that. --Divebomb (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep Neutral, leaning towards Merge Really not my field, but seems like a legitimate, all be it poorly written, article. Needs to be completely overhauled (its current form appears to be written by a fan with a ten year old's vocabulary, and is encyclopedic in several ways. That being said, it can be saved with a rewrite.) At least the first refrence seems good, although area will improve as the article does. I say just give it the work tags and come back in six months. Sven Manguard  Talk  01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's simply not how these articles work. Articles on this subject have languished for years with next to no improvement, despite many discussions about how generally terrible they are. This one has been around since 2005- this isn't something some newbie has just thrown together. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the first two paragraphs. Tell me this isn't "just thrown togther" by a ten year old fan:


 * Slag (Scories in Quebec, Canada, Tricex in Italy) is very tough, strong and possesses impressive firepower.[1] In dinosaur mode, Slag can spew from his mouth a bolt of 3,000 degrees Celsius flame up to 80 feet (25 m) 2 degrees to left. He possesses enormous strength and can shatter a brick building with a single blow from his armored head. His horns can also shoot high powered lasers. In robot mode he carries a high-energy laser rifle, an energo sword and a rocket poom.


 * Slag's biggest weakness is his over-aggressive behavior, which can cause problems relating with other Autobots. He is also noticed for being the only Dinobot who would dare argue with the leader Grimlock over his commands (ironically, he is usually seen as the group's second in command). He joined the Autobots in the cartoon and comics in their first year (1984), but his toy wasn't released until 1985.


 * I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, but I think bad writing in and of itself is not an excuse to kill an article. It has appeared in multiple mediums, has a commercial value, and is sourced. I can't in good faith advocate deleting it. Sven Manguard  Talk  01:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the problem with the inclusionist mentality they always scream notable. But won't do anything about to improve the article save the article like add reliable sources. One of the recent ADF's I participated in when The Most Hated Family in America when it was nominated for deletion. The inclusionists at least have the decency to find GOOD reliable sources and rewrite the article. Something Sven Manguard you seem unwilling or unable to do. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just involved in a lengthy battle with another user who decided to focus less on arguing points and more on arguing people. Keep your comments civil and avoid treading on the boundry of personal attacks. I don't need to add sources or work on the article. I say it meeds WP:N and WP:V and that is enough for me to vote keep. Watch your words and tone please, and for the record, I vote delete at least 95% of the time, I'm not at all an inclusionist. Sven Manguard  Talk  06:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge looked at the sources but they're wholly inadequate to WP:verify notability. Merge is a fair compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly two published books is a lot for most of the fringe nerd/children's entertainment articles I've seen. You are right, that it is not enough, and I agree that the other sources are garbage, but if we do settle on a merge, let's try very hard to protect the two actual sources we do have. Sven Manguard  Talk  16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Same notability issues as many other Transformers AfDs...sourced to toy books, comics, fansites. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:FICT. Isn't there a Transformers Wiki for this?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into whatever (Dinobots, I think) genre of Transformer this character this is. The proliferation of Transformer character pages is reaching Pokemon levels. Speaking of which, if I'm remembering right, wasn't there a similar rash of Pokemon related AfD's not too long ago? How was that handled? Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oy. Looks like the Pokemon Test is about to be reincarnated in a newer, uglier, robotic form. Fan-tastic! Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as many have stated. Cruft, cruft, cruft. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as compromise due to a lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 8 October 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.