Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 August 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slugslinger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party sources at all. The first one appears to be a source, but is in fact just a listing. Everything else is a Transformers website or other Transformers source. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Once again Black Kite doesn't bother to do the research. I expanded that first source, as it was from a book that specifically use Slugslinger's biogrpahy, motto and function in a talk about violent toys for boys. This is definitely a viable third party source that isn't "in-fiction". Mathewignash (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced Transformers article with unreliable information DELETE87.194.161.182 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — 87.194.161.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment. The mention in Boys Will Be Boys is trivial - literally just the character's name. this does not constitute significant coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - The book talks about his motto, biography and function being intrinisically violent, as proof that Transformers are too violent for kids. It's more than a trivial mention, they picked him specifically because he mentions killing his opponents, and he's a kids toy. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another toy with poor sourcing, there is simply nothing here to establish notability. Trivial mentions in otherwise reliable sources do not count towards notability, as Mathewignash was recently reminded. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminded by who? Oh right, by you, who keeps repeating it even when he's wrong. Mathewignash (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once in awhile you'll luck out and get the WP:ARS to show up and bloc vote, it's unavoidable. That you've "won" one AfD and lost about 100 others isn't a terribly great track record though, so I'd keep the cork in your champagne if I were you. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you might consider the vague possibility that in that case of the Maximal article, YOU WERE WRONG. Mathewignash (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, there have been articles deleted when the ARS showed up. Numbers don't matter. Assume good faith please, and stop bashing the ARS every chance you get. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few appearances, some info about release information for Targetmasters toys, including many others besides Slugslinger, and a single commentary on the character is insufficient to require notability. Even if the commentary is in-depth, it would be a case of WP:ONESOURCE. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yet another fanblurb with extremely poor sourcing. Attacking the nominator is not a legitimate defence of this article. Reyk _YO! 07:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's failure to follow our deletion guidelines seems quite relevant. His spamming AFD with all these Transformer's nominations seems to be bad faith disruption because there is an obvious alternative to deletion in all these cases - merger into some larger article such as List of Transformers: Energon characters. Warden (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WP:BEFORE a guideline when it emphatically is not is unhelpful. Suggesting a merge of badly sourced, in-universe fan trivia into another article which is also virtually sourceless, in-universe, full of trivia, and already way too long- that's also unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no Transformers buff but find it quite easy to find expert and detailed coverage of the topic in detail in sources such as this. The topic is demonstrably notable and just needs work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question-do you just pick the first source you can find and call it significant coverage? Because you honestly just tried to argue that, because a transformers action figure has a page in a book that is a catalogue on transformers actions figures, the character is notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found indicate notability. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources of dubious quality. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.