Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra Magnus

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. There is disagreement if the provided sources present significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. To avoid a future AfD, I recommend editors to strengthen the article with the found sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Magnus[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)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots where there are multiple mentions of this character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep question mark? Heh... Kind of borderline, but there is coverage of him out there. The article may not appropriately reflect that, but the coverage just needs to WP:NEXIST per the Notability test. It's also a bit tricky when it comes to these transformers since there is so much cross-media possibility and so many variations... Does that make it easier or harder to establish notability? Anyway, that's a separate discussion. Here are some examples of coverage:

Review from a major Philippine newspaper/outlet that also goes into his history
BleedingCool review of a toy
His movie death has been covered by a few places regarding what it was and what it might have been by io9/Gizmodo and by Den of Geek among other places.
Den of Geek also covered how his toy and character actually came about in the first place.
He's also in a CBR list of most powerful autobots. (Yes... a Top X list... that's why it's last here.) --2pou (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the links 2pou found, I agree, WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect I do not agree GNG has been met. The references are very short and do not satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria in WP:GNG. Some of them aren't necessarily about the character so much as the movie they appear in. Simply not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as detailed above so deletion is not needed in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged the article for excessive use of non free images, these cant be decorative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed two of the images. JIP | Talk 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — IMO no significant sources coverage is given, even though there are some citations present. As per 2pou (those sources aren't used in fact) I believe that it must be kept but shortened and rewritten from a non-fictional perspective. We also may spare it by moving to Transformers article or related one. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources. Passes WP:N Wm335td (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed sources 2pou provides, but reviews of a toy can make the toy notable but not the fictional character. And mentions in passing like few sentences about his death scene cut from a movie are still pretty much trivial coverage that fails in-depth requirement. All of this stuff is better severed to readers at https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ultra_Magnus_(G1) not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the toy as well as the fictional character, and should we be promoting sites with advertising directed at children? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:35, 9 November 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.