Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Transformers spacecraft (2nd nomination)

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 fictional spacecraft as a compromise, since several entries in the list are already at the target. Properly sourced content can be merged if desired. ansh 666 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers spacecraft[edit]

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

Complete and total fancruft. The references are either primary sources or give no indication the information is relevant to non fans. A large portion is also WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional spacecraft. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into List of fictional spacecraft, because that's what it's all about. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything to merge that proves any societal impact from any of these, though? It seems that it is entirely just fancruft and would be unsuitable for merging._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that not even a redirect should be preserved? Raymond3023 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it has material worth preserving. Otherwise you are simply inviting it to be recreated by aspiring fancruft writers. Besides, usually that info is in the relevant Wikia if it's even a somewhat major piece of media._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have changed the vote now to delete now, its just going to become a fancruft. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are notable as a group, and the list provides a convenient place to include information on spacecraft that are not independently notable. Better to have this as a quick reference than to repeat all the relevant information on every article that mentions a ship. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional spacecraft. Concerns about cruft-attracting are more likely to be validated with a redlink than a redirect. Wikipedia is not paper; that doesn't mean we need a 5000-character article on every fictional thing but it doesn't mean "it's on Wikia" is a good reason not to at least mention it in the encyclopedia that is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With a redlink, an article can be speedy deleted if the content isn't substantially different/improved, and salted if the article is deleted once again. With a redirect there is nothing to do but bring it to AfD... again... if the article is still cruft. A redlink is preferable for that reason. Redirects should be used if there is valuable info worth preserving (read: not cruft)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no redirect required. Ifnord (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, no need for a merger. I'm puzzled by the delete !votes, and would encourage those expressing them to clarify their policy basis. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea where you get "GNG is met" from this. The sources are primary, not secondary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wired is a primary source for Transformers? Remember, the presence of primary sources doesn't invalidate the RS'es that are present in an article. As long as there are 2-3 independent RS'es that cover the subject, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete because an article exists which covers this subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens has misinterpreted the GNG. It's not enough that secondary sources talk about it, but it has to get significant mentions in secondary sources. The Wired article merely has a few sentences about each Transformer. Still fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are almost enough links for this to be a WP:SAL, and there's some sourcing (beyond the implicit sourcing to the named works) for entries that aren't notable enough for stand-alone pages. The page also doesn't seem to have WP:UNDUE detail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But how the article is worth preserving? You should acknowledge that this is a fancruft and not really going to become any better. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT, content is only in-universe plot summaries, nothing about the impact of these fictional elements on the real world. Sandstein 09:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Years ago we would've transwiki'd this to Wikia, but I would be surprised if this weren't already there in far greater detail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked but you made a good point there. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From reading the first AfD, this list was in part a decision reached to handle articles on individual transformers deemed non-notable, and WP:PRESERVE is an important policy, else we would be treating our content contributers with disrespect. The NOTPLOT issue was raised at the previous AfD. It isn't on its face an issue since a plot, as per Google's definition 2 is, "the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence," so at one level this is not an article about an interrelated sequence of events, so there is no plot whatsoever. And it is not the case that the list entries dwell on fictional aspects or violates MOS:INUNIVERSE, and completely removing the fictional relevance would be counter-productive. As mentioned at the previous AfD there is real-world crossover here looking at toys, comics, and animated series. I don't have an opinion about merging, as this is a decision for the content contributors, but if the article is merged, there should be no prejudice to continued improvements to the encyclopedia, which includes an unmerge. Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merging to List of fictional spacecraft. The main question here IMO is whether LISTN is met, and it is not. The cites that meet RS do not discuss the topic of spacecraft in the franchise, specifically. The article's content is unneeded cruft that is not worth merging. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per James above, WP:LISTN is not met. The sources in the article discuss various individual craft/robots from the article in detail, but not as a group. I couldn't find any LISTN-satisfying references by Googling. Daß Wölf 01:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and apparent lack of consensus. The page is informative for readers researching the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN is not met here. List of fictional spacecraft exists, which is why the article becomes more redundant. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTPLOT, as indicated by Sandstein. On a more detailed analysis, some of the information cited in the article could possibly be added to other articles pertaining to the subject (Transformers), but the vast majority of the article is un-sourced and unnecessary. Fans of Transformers interested in this peculiar topic should either look at a specific Transformers-Wiki page or, better yet, support their franchise by purchasing specialized books on the subject. Additionally, it's important to point out that just listing books in the bibliography is not enough proof of notability; specific citations from the books should also be present in the article.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per James. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2018 (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.