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 delete. This is primarily because I think those advocating Keep are putting up such weak arguments that say, basically, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion which is not a great argument to Keep it. That said, if anyone wanted to create a Redirect from this page title or work on this article in Draft space, I would restore it or you can go to
WP:REFUND. I just don't see a strong enough consensus to Redirect or Draftify that I can close this discussion in favor of either of those two options. LizRead!Talk!23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I feel like that's a big reason why pages like these exist. Since some fandom websites are called "wikis" it causes people to make the assumption we work the same way that fandom does. But we have actual rules and regulations. Industrial Insect(talk)14:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify Article I normally don't vouch for this, but given that the Transformers Comics seem notable, a derivative list of individual comics seems warranted. This page is really bad, though, and should probably see significant work before being pushed to the mainspace again.
Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem with mashing stuff into Google is the comic is called "Transformers", and there's no universal way to denote the British series, which gets called "Transformers UK", "the British Transformers", "Marvel UK's Transformers", and even just Transformers. For example, the Royal Mail stamps were inspired by the 'British contribution' to Transformers, which is the Marvel UK comics.
Given that sources are out there and the big problems with the article nominated are mainly due to crap formatting, I'd say it is more beneficial to the improvement of the wider project that someone tries to actually salvage the thing instead of just yelling "Delete" and sniping at other wikis.
BoomboxTestarossa (
talk)
19:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Nobody's sniping at fandom and calling it bad. I was just saying that fandom and Wikipedia are entirely unrelated in how they work, and that it's annoying when people create poorly sourced articles because they think that we work like fandom. In fact, you referring to fandom as an "other wiki" perfectly proves my point. Industrial Insect(talk)03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Why are you assuming the article was created by someone who thinks "we" work like fandom? That's a bad faith reading. The majority of the work on the article appears to have been done circa 2008, before Fandom was even in use as a brand, and when Wikipedia's standards of sources and notability were markedly different; it's also not the person who created the article's fault that it hasn't been brought into line with the differing standards implemented since.
I think I could only get behind Draftify if a) the page was dangerously misleading and b) there was someone in this AfD right now saying they'd be on it in the next few days. Otherwise for an article that has problems with being too difuse, no 'parent' page and seemingly no editors with the time and inclination to rectify its problems any time soon it would effectively be a soft deletion. The sources are there for notability, without even much digging, and while awfully formatted it's no less valid than the spin-off pages of any other notable comic. As a British comic it is broadly on my radar, especially considering its sales and it being one of a surprising few to continue to generate lasting overseas interest (the entire run has been reprinted by a major American publisher, which might be unique for a British comic). But I'm maybe 15% through the work I hope to do on AP/Fleetway/IPC so even if Marvel UK is next on the list after them it will be months, and that's assuming I don't flake. TBH if I was King of Wikipedia and/or won the lottery and could devote the time to it I'd tear most of the comics pages on Wikipedia down and build them up from scratch, but that's a different discussion, and one to be had by people who are actually going to do the work.
Delete: Fails NLIST and article is unsourced fancruft. No objection to a consensus redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics). Agree this article is useless, if sourcing develops that meets NLIST, WP:TNT will be needed to create an article for Wikipedia instead of fandom. //
Timothy ::
talk21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - It is pretty dubious if this even meets any kind of notability guidelines, and even if it did, being completely unsourced means that it certainly fails
WP:V and potentially runs afoul of
WP:OR. I suppose I would not have any strong objections if it was used as a redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics), but I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term.
Rorshacma (
talk)
01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – It doesn't appear that this meets
WP:NLIST, and even the UK-specific series as a whole is borderline. I don't see redirection of this title being helpful.
Tollens (
talk)
06:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics) or Draftify as
WP:ATD there's no need to delete this and the history will be valuable when we finally get around to improving Transformers articles in the encyclopedia. This seems likely to be notable based on print sources, given the era. Also a note that published material is implicitly verifiable to itself so this isn't completely unsourced. —
siroχo08:49, 9 November 2023 (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.
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 delete. This is primarily because I think those advocating Keep are putting up such weak arguments that say, basically, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion which is not a great argument to Keep it. That said, if anyone wanted to create a Redirect from this page title or work on this article in Draft space, I would restore it or you can go to
WP:REFUND. I just don't see a strong enough consensus to Redirect or Draftify that I can close this discussion in favor of either of those two options. LizRead!Talk!23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I feel like that's a big reason why pages like these exist. Since some fandom websites are called "wikis" it causes people to make the assumption we work the same way that fandom does. But we have actual rules and regulations. Industrial Insect(talk)14:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify Article I normally don't vouch for this, but given that the Transformers Comics seem notable, a derivative list of individual comics seems warranted. This page is really bad, though, and should probably see significant work before being pushed to the mainspace again.
Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem with mashing stuff into Google is the comic is called "Transformers", and there's no universal way to denote the British series, which gets called "Transformers UK", "the British Transformers", "Marvel UK's Transformers", and even just Transformers. For example, the Royal Mail stamps were inspired by the 'British contribution' to Transformers, which is the Marvel UK comics.
Given that sources are out there and the big problems with the article nominated are mainly due to crap formatting, I'd say it is more beneficial to the improvement of the wider project that someone tries to actually salvage the thing instead of just yelling "Delete" and sniping at other wikis.
BoomboxTestarossa (
talk)
19:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Nobody's sniping at fandom and calling it bad. I was just saying that fandom and Wikipedia are entirely unrelated in how they work, and that it's annoying when people create poorly sourced articles because they think that we work like fandom. In fact, you referring to fandom as an "other wiki" perfectly proves my point. Industrial Insect(talk)03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Why are you assuming the article was created by someone who thinks "we" work like fandom? That's a bad faith reading. The majority of the work on the article appears to have been done circa 2008, before Fandom was even in use as a brand, and when Wikipedia's standards of sources and notability were markedly different; it's also not the person who created the article's fault that it hasn't been brought into line with the differing standards implemented since.
I think I could only get behind Draftify if a) the page was dangerously misleading and b) there was someone in this AfD right now saying they'd be on it in the next few days. Otherwise for an article that has problems with being too difuse, no 'parent' page and seemingly no editors with the time and inclination to rectify its problems any time soon it would effectively be a soft deletion. The sources are there for notability, without even much digging, and while awfully formatted it's no less valid than the spin-off pages of any other notable comic. As a British comic it is broadly on my radar, especially considering its sales and it being one of a surprising few to continue to generate lasting overseas interest (the entire run has been reprinted by a major American publisher, which might be unique for a British comic). But I'm maybe 15% through the work I hope to do on AP/Fleetway/IPC so even if Marvel UK is next on the list after them it will be months, and that's assuming I don't flake. TBH if I was King of Wikipedia and/or won the lottery and could devote the time to it I'd tear most of the comics pages on Wikipedia down and build them up from scratch, but that's a different discussion, and one to be had by people who are actually going to do the work.
Delete: Fails NLIST and article is unsourced fancruft. No objection to a consensus redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics). Agree this article is useless, if sourcing develops that meets NLIST, WP:TNT will be needed to create an article for Wikipedia instead of fandom. //
Timothy ::
talk21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - It is pretty dubious if this even meets any kind of notability guidelines, and even if it did, being completely unsourced means that it certainly fails
WP:V and potentially runs afoul of
WP:OR. I suppose I would not have any strong objections if it was used as a redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics), but I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term.
Rorshacma (
talk)
01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – It doesn't appear that this meets
WP:NLIST, and even the UK-specific series as a whole is borderline. I don't see redirection of this title being helpful.
Tollens (
talk)
06:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Transformers (Marvel Comics) or Draftify as
WP:ATD there's no need to delete this and the history will be valuable when we finally get around to improving Transformers articles in the encyclopedia. This seems likely to be notable based on print sources, given the era. Also a note that published material is implicitly verifiable to itself so this isn't completely unsourced. —
siroχo08:49, 9 November 2023 (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.