Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Twist


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Twin Twist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Character has no proof of notability. Only non-fansite source is the lawsuit. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The character is important to the real world as it was the center of a major lawsuit over intellectual property, and it's properly sourced. There are actually casebooks on copyright and patent law that mention Twin Twist. http://books.google.com/books?id=qIohAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&dq=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&hl=en&ei=zlGeTICvG8_PngfXxLSuDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg Mathewignash (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lawsui is more about Hasbro's ownership towards their products and isn't really coverage of the character. NotARealWord (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is positive proof of the character being noted by the "real world". Mathewignash (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not significant coverage. NotARealWord (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also mentioned here, where another book mentions their popularity http://books.google.com/books?id=VuDzAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&dq=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&hl=en&ei=cVKeTMr3NdSpngfJ5onCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA So I have a third party law book mentioning the character BY NAME and saying he's popular. Seriously, sources don't get much better. Mathewignash (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Popular does not mean notable. Needs to be significant coverage. If it's books they need to be third party sources with much information regarding the character. Like an entire page just about Twin Twist. Remember Bali ultimate's winning argument about the notabiliy of energon? NotARealWord (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- poor sources that aren't independent. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:N. The article lacks reliable sources and the topic does not have significant coverage. --Slon02 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - there isn't enough significant coverage by neutral, reliable sources to meet notability. → Clementina  [  Scribble  ] 03:18, 4 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.