Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnut (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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnut (Transformers)

Lugnut (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Thug cruft. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article about a star villian of a TV series that went 3 years, includes magazine citation. A Keeper.
  Mathewignash (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep! per Mathewignash. I like this bit - Animated McDonalds Lugnut. Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - More non-notable fanboyisms... Fan forums, toy guides, primary sources, and comic cons are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ditto Tarc's reasoning. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral, leaning towards Keep or Merge I'm not sure about this. There seems to be at least one third-party citation here, which means it's not entirely unnotable, but, well.....--Divebomb (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)*Keep There are two independent magazine citations in this article. Proves this isn't non-notable. --Divebomb (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question - If more third party references are added would that sway you to keep? Perhaps some independent magazine reviews (ones NOT liscensed by Hasbro)?
    Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)\[reply
    ]
    • Answer Yes it would. Remember
      Turbo (Gobots)? --Divebomb (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Merge - To
  cruft isn't a solid deletion argument. NotARealWord (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - notable villian. Has been mention is sources. Laso per Mathewignash. --Stickee (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative proposal. There are a lot of Transformers articles, due to the large number of characters involved in the fiction and the multiple continuity changes/reboots the series has experienced. I suspect that a Pokemon-style solution is the way forward, condensing articles into lists in the main and preserving and developing the most notable characters into well-supported articles. Doing so is outside the scope of the per-article approach of AFD. Regardless of whether there is any initiative to open an RFC or project on the issue, I support a procedural close of this nomination. The nominator's rationale here is wholly insufficient, as it was on
  understand the intended goal here, but I suspect there is a point being made. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The Transformer AfDs have been going on for many weeks. If someone was actually interested in cleaning up the gigantic Transformer mess outside of AfD, I'd have expected them to start merge&redirect efforts weeks ago. I'd like to see the efforts first and only then a procedural close. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge and redirect efforts are ongoing. It's just that most of the merges proposed are, quite frankly, ridiculous. (Why? Why would anyone want to merge content from a page about one of the most important and notable Transformers to a freakin' list of characters?) --Divebomb (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - By "one of the most important", you mean who? NotARealWord (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I mean Optimus Prime, Starscream, Bumblebee, Megatron and Cliffjumper. (I should've used the plural, sorry, I'm not a native speaker.) --Divebomb (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that merging character like this with a article like

Mathewignash (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete, not enough material of real-world significance to support a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:11, 30 October 2010 (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.