The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized.
— Mathewignash, [1]
I would have expected someone to delete List of Decepticons, which is a worthless idea for an article in the first place, made even more worthless by its inability to decide whether it's a list of characters or a list of toys. If this is really a "something has to give" scenario where the raw number of Transformers articles is too high, then go after the dumb jive like that.
— ▲ndrusi/Andrusi, [2]
(Perhaps some people may find it strange that I'm quoting somebody from an off-site discussion that was mainly complaining about Wikipedia. However, I do admit that the quoted post does at least have some point.)
Seriously, this article seems a terrible idea. A collection of bluelinks with a couple of words next to each bluelink. Don't think this passes
WP:LSC. Not all of the entires are notable, (notice how some of those bluelinks
redirect back to this article) so not a "list of notable things". Apparently "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" are allowed, but there are craploads of characters who fall under "Decepticons". This list is too long for that.
Also, original research problem. Some Decepticons are described in this list as being specific models of vehicles (" Soundwave - Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" as the description for Soundwave as he appeared in Transformers: Cybertron), original research if they weren't specifically described as those vehicles. Considering that many of these vehicle forms aren't actually licensed from their manufacturers, the characters' resemblance to them is probably not very much. If the similartites between the two (the character and the actual vehicle) are not obvious enough that the toymaker has to acquire a license or is at risk of a lawsuit, then it seems to be original research if not properly sourced. NotARealWord ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply
NotARealWord ( talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized.
— Mathewignash, [1]
I would have expected someone to delete List of Decepticons, which is a worthless idea for an article in the first place, made even more worthless by its inability to decide whether it's a list of characters or a list of toys. If this is really a "something has to give" scenario where the raw number of Transformers articles is too high, then go after the dumb jive like that.
— ▲ndrusi/Andrusi, [2]
(Perhaps some people may find it strange that I'm quoting somebody from an off-site discussion that was mainly complaining about Wikipedia. However, I do admit that the quoted post does at least have some point.)
Seriously, this article seems a terrible idea. A collection of bluelinks with a couple of words next to each bluelink. Don't think this passes
WP:LSC. Not all of the entires are notable, (notice how some of those bluelinks
redirect back to this article) so not a "list of notable things". Apparently "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" are allowed, but there are craploads of characters who fall under "Decepticons". This list is too long for that.
Also, original research problem. Some Decepticons are described in this list as being specific models of vehicles (" Soundwave - Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" as the description for Soundwave as he appeared in Transformers: Cybertron), original research if they weren't specifically described as those vehicles. Considering that many of these vehicle forms aren't actually licensed from their manufacturers, the characters' resemblance to them is probably not very much. If the similartites between the two (the character and the actual vehicle) are not obvious enough that the toymaker has to acquire a license or is at risk of a lawsuit, then it seems to be original research if not properly sourced. NotARealWord ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply
NotARealWord ( talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply