Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windbreaker (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 Procedural Close. I agree with Josh Milburn on this one. As the articles aren't similar enough to have a mass-nom, I think that each should have their own discussion so that editors can focus on that article as their seems to varying consensuses on each article. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Windbreaker (Transformers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. The "top thirty" article doesn't really do much on its own.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're fellow Transformers articles that currently do not establish notability:
 * TTN (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * TTN (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * TTN (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For each article:
 * Windbreaker (Transformers): neutral, leaning toward recommending a merge somewhere. It's difficult to judge whether the included coverage is significant.  I don't see anything worthwhile on Google Books, but the Transformers Collectors Club seems likely to be a reliable source.  This sample issue offered for free on their website lists an editor-in-chief and full staff.  Our article on Fun Publications says that the publisher is independent of Hasbro.  From reading the Windbreaker article, it seems likely that these sources are just price guides and in-universe plot recaps, but who knows.  This should probably be merged somewhere, but I don't know where.
 * Star Seekers: delete. I don't see significant coverage.  Google results are just the usual novels and fan sites.  Unlike the prior character, this one doesn't have a bunch of offline, inaccessible sources to put doubt into my mind.
 * Moonracer: Redirect (or possibly merge) to List of female Transformers. I found this interview at Comic Book Resources, but that's all.
 * Salvage (Transformers): redirect to List of Autobots. The generic name makes it difficult to research, but I don't see anything but novels and fan sites.
 * Skyhammer (Transformers): delete. Both Autobots and Decepticons were named this, so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to either of their respective lists.  There's no coverage that I can see beyond the usual price guides, novels, and fan sites.
 * Stormtroopers (Transformers): redirect to List of Decepticons. Again, there doesn't seem to be any coverage in independent reliable sources for this list, which means it fails WP:LISTN.
 * Icepick (Transformers): redirect to List of Decepticons. Like the others, this one lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.  There are a few price guides indexed by Google Books, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with NinjaRobotPirate, whose analysis looks about right. Perhaps Windbreaker requires a separate discussion. As a general note, though, I question the value of these mass nominations; they mean that articles can't always get the consideration they warrant, and can make for complex, frustrating discussions/closes ("no consensus on two, merge three and delete one. Four are being kept, but I note that no one said anything about them".) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2016 (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.