Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger (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   merge to List of Decepticons. v/r - TP 13:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Slugslinger
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously nominated at Articles for deletion/Slugslinger and closed as no consensus on the basis of a source that was arguably refuted at Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_27. However, there was no clear consensus to overturn the article and delete but some support for a merge as well as an endorse. The overall consensus remains unclear. I am therefore relisting this using my discretion as the DRV closer to try and force consensus. As a guide to participants, I believe the discussion would benefit from a close analysis of the sourcing and consideration on whether there is enough sourced content to allow an article or even to justify a merge. As this is a procedural nomination I am neutral on the outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep Procedural closure Invalid claim of a procedural nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to explain that one. As well as this edit from the first AfD... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there is a necessity for concensus. There are pleanty of articles on Wikipedia lacking concensus on keep or delete. Is there any rule that requires us to re-nominate it forever until we get a concensus? I just forsee a relisting of the same arguements, and a concensus will come about when some people from one side or the other of the arguement don't go online that week, so the other side wins.Mathewignash (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as before, there are still no reliable sources here - the first one is a brief footnote on a single page of a book, and all the rest are sources about Transformers (and even then don't go into much detail apart from plot summaries). Having said that, a Merge to List of Decepticons would be a reasonable compromise - I realise that Mathewignash has suggested a merge to Targetmasters but that's practically unsourced as well.. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * COMMENT, We can add sources to it from any Targetmaster characters who get merged there, if Slugslinger's article is boarderline, then surely an article with him and OTHER sources would be acceptable. Mathewignash (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP, the article has demonstrated notability in unrealted media. I realize this article is boarderline, and the people who tend to just vote "DELETE" in all Transformers articles will show up with the common arguements, meanwhile the people who worked on the article and voted "KEEP" for it before vote the same again. This nomination really won't settle anything. I'd prefer it close as no concensus again and then let's just debate the merge proposal Black Kite has made. Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - Sources seem to meet the definition of significant coverage, as defined by Wikipedia, see below:
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Addressing the subject directly in detail" seems to have been done. In a more general sense, the *overall* topic of Transformers has received incredibly significant coverage, so the only question is when to split or merge the content.  A single article about Transformers would leave out scads of material that readers would like to have, and splitting too much might leave us with multiple tiny articles that make it harder to search.  I think the current treatment of this toy/character is fine, but I would readily defer to a merge. -- Avanu (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the sources are of dubious quality and unreliable or as a compromise merge. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge, precisely as I said during the DRV. There is clearly insufficient sourcing for a separate article, but a lack of sourcing doesn't mean "delete" when there are reasonable alternatives such as to merge or redirect. I'm not overjoyed that this was relisted.  Editor time is a resource, and this rather unimportant matter is consuming a great deal too much of it.  I suggest that if there's no consensus this time around, we archive this debate and leave it.  We can come back to arguing about transformers once Category:All unreferenced BLPs is empty.  If that means the transformers-related articles stay in this state for a while, then the world won't come to an end.— S Marshall  T/C 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Later) I want to add, in response to Reyk, that a "merge" outcome obviously doesn't have to mean keeping all the text.— S Marshall T/C 22:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but that's one of the two typical outcomes. The other being that nothing whatsoever is done for months and months. Discriminate merges, where large amounts of inappropriate material are not kept, are far more rare and generally only happen when there is strong consensus that the article is mostly junk- such as at AfDs like this one. Reyk  YO!  23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- discounting a single passing mention, the subject of this article is covered only by the same kinds of sources that have generally been shown to be insufficient- toy catalogues, price guides and the works of fiction themselves. I'm still not seeing the substantial, independent sources that Wikipedia requires for an independent article. This is clear from the lardy structure of the article itself: plotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummary This character appeared in primary source X[1]. This character appeared in primary source Y[2] plotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummary. I'm also not convinced of the merits of a merge because the suggested merge targets would not be improved by including material from this article: they are already way too long, have many of the same kinds of sourcing issues this one does, and are also too heavy on plot summary. Copy and pasting more of the same would make those articles worse rather than better. Reyk  YO!  22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a question here, but you said "the same kinds of sources that have generally been shown to be insufficient- toy catalogues, price guides and the works of fiction themselves. I'm still not seeing the substantial, independent sources that Wikipedia requires for an independent article"
 * I quoted the Wikipedia definition above of "significant coverage", and this seems to fall 100% into that definition, so in what way do we decide that it is insufficient? Just because?  Is there an editorial standard we're supposed to be looking to?  Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look through some of the previous Transformers AfDs you'll see the general consensus is that these kinds of sources prove the thing exists, but that they do nothing to establish notability. This is, IMO, a sensible position to take because the works of fiction themselves do not confer notability. Neither should catalogue type sources whose purpose is to slavishly list each and every one, just like my local phone book does not bestow notability upon me. Here is a list of previous Transformers AfDs that show this principle. (1, 2, 3, and many others). Reyk  YO!  23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per S Marshall. A selective merge obviously.  My one worry about such a merge is that we'll likely lose the (very helpful) image due to NFCC concerns.  But that's a separate problem. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuckin' Deleyte. I for one am quite overjoyed that this was relisted.  It does not have proper sourcing, alleges no notability of the subject matter, and plainly is nothing more than fanboy wankcruft.  It's time that we install a strong leader to extirpate these transformer articles unworthy of life on wikipedia and thus usher in a glorious thousand year era of peace.  Mobaod (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * COMMENT, it should be noted that the editor above just joined and has made no other edits to articles other than to try to get this article deleted. These articles were previously targeted by sock puppeteers, which makes me suspect his edits. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If an account is a single purpose sock or something, you can tag it as one by adding after their comment (it might make your life a bit easier).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - sources do not seem to provide the significant coverage needed to show the notability of the subject, but a merge to one of the list articles seems logical to me. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge if and only if anyone cares enough to do it. As has been shown again and again, closing as a merge just equates to it being kept with a banner saying "this article will be merged" for an indefinite period of time. If you want it merged, do it. Otherwise, delete. Yeah, there's a passing mention in a reliable source. I could find far better sources (analysis from academics) on hundreds (I am not exaggerating) of quotes by Nietzsche or Hobbes- do we need articles on each and every one of them? J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (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.