Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terranotron


 * 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 some of it somewhere. Action to be taken by interested parties outside of AFD.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Terranotron

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability and a vehicle for unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It makes pleanty of references to unrelated sites, and it's been expanded on several times. I took particular care to delete some fancruft from the article, like fan theories on the character's origin, and made sure to site varied sources. It should be good now. Mathewignash (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a List of Transformers characters 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That page doesn't exist. I oppose merging or deleting, but if you merged it, shouldn't it be with pages more like Dinobots? Mathewignash (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to list of characters. I'll dissect the nomination:
 * 1) "This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers" That means it shouldn't get a separate article, doesn't say anything about deletion.
 * 2) "through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources." It includes information on the real world toy. Whether the source is reliable is up for debate.
 * 3) "Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details." Apart from a single sentence, everything is referenced. (no OR) and you can't describe something fictional without plot details. I would say this article keeps plot details to a bare minimum (a lot less than most of the articles you nominate).
 * 4) "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." There doesn't need to be (WP:DEADLINE) and again, no extended coverage does not equate no coverage at all. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete - not enough notability established for a separate article. Mgm: I fail to see how the existence of a toy conveys any additional notability. Siawase (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge after discussion on the appropriate talk page; since none of the reason given would apply if the content or a suitable part of it were merged into a combination article on these, or at least redirected, there is no case for outright deletion. I note the nominator never even tried to suggest a merge in the proper place, and his repeated insistence on bringing these here seems POINTY. It seems he has taken account of this, on a recent posting on his talk page, and has started redirecting without discussion, something for which he was previously blocked, with the declared intention of going to afd if the merges are reverted. The way of dealing with disputed merges is dispute resolution, not afd, and this nomination, along with all of the similar ones for mergeable/redirectable content, is an abuse of deletion process. He has his own view of what is appropriate content, and apparently intends to try every possible route to bring this about, regardless of policy. DGG (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see where he was blocked. All I see is an admin saying he would be blocked unless he began attributing merges correctly. Siawase (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His long block waaaay back earlier this year which was probably removed from the block log. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to appropriate list article. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no appropriate list to merge to, and I suspect that if one were created, it would be listcruft. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (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.