Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurr

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 redirect to List of Autobots. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blurr[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "one of the most prominent characters in the third season of the original cartoon". Of course, this must still pass GNG... FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey, good news here! There is an exception to Wikipedia's requirements for notability of topics which means this article can easily be Kept, with only small modification to clarify that it is a set index article covering multiple items, i.e. the 7 usages of the name that the article does cover. The reason this can be saved is the argument/fact that any verifiable set of same-named things is allowed to be covered in a set index article, for which standards of notability do not apply! There is no requirement for wp:GNG or any other standard to be met, beyond verification that there are multiple things named "Blurr". It should probably be renamed, however, to "List of fictional characters named Blurr" or similar, and Category:Set indices should be added, so that it is clear to all that the big exception applies.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur (still ongoing, but honestly it seems very likely the decision will be to "Keep" or not delete the article, thereby endorsing the strategy), it is being clarified that this maneuver is okay. This is great. By its reasoning, this article can be saved! --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doncram: I recommend you think about WP:POINT and your comment here. —hike395 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing salvageable here, since there are no secondary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. There have been several incarnations of the character, but anyone knowledgeable about the subject to search for the character by name will find what they want on this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. There are no reliable sources demonstrating any independent notability, however as the character was prominent in the classic animated series, it stands to reason that it would be a potential search term. The character is already included on the target list, so a redirect is all that is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (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.