Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideswipe (Transformers)

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 keep‎. Here's hoping that some of the editors arguing for Keep work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe (Transformers)[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)

Doubt this meets WP:GNG, not every Transformer deserves its own article, see WP:POKEMON. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Quick Gnews hits:

- https://www.cbr.com/sideswipe-off-screen-death-transformers/

- https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/transformers-sideswipe-skywarp-team-up-exclusive-two-pack/

- https://www.wired.com/2009/08/autobot-sideswipe/

- http://www.actionfigureinsider.com/the-transformers-masterpiece-sideswipe-euphorium/

Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bleedingcool is a PR piece about some toy that does not even appear to have been significantly rewritten from marketing speak. Wired piece does mention the character outside a name and seems to be a piece about some fan's lookalike car mod. actionfigureinsider is a review of a particular toy, not of the character. Those are bad, bad sources.

Only the CBR can be argued to have some analysis of the character that goes beyond plot, but I'd say it's just few sentneces long. Given that the article has no reception section, and the best source (CBR) is meh, my vote is for redirect to the list of Transformers. I can't say merge as there's nothing in this article than I think is encyclopedic. If kept, this needs to be pruned down by 95% to remove fancruft plot summary and merchandise detail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've said those sources are necessarily definitive, it was a quick Google search, and I am mainly in opposition to AfDs where the nominator plainly hasn't bothered with Before. Is Sideswipe notable? Dunno, not sure. Wouldn't surprise me either way. Not in a hurry to sink a lot of research into it when I have other things I'm looking at.

But some random nominating a bunch of articles from a franchise they don't like because they "doubt" they're notable and claiming anyone who objects is required to write a GA-level article to prove otherwise is not something that should fly.

As said all the Transformers articles are fancruft and basically shit. Not sure thats cause for TNT so much as an open casting call for someone interested in the area to come in and fix it. God only knows what the List of Transformers everyone wants to 'merge' these articles into looks like... Once again it is easy to find people who say merge or redirect but very difficult to find people who actually do any of the work. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, content problems can be dealt with via editing. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz (Transformers) (2nd nomination) —siro χ o 04:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And possibly disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. I am surprised people are looking at these sources and believing they are WP:SIGCOV. They are trivial mentions pulled off a Google search with no regard for how deep they go on the character, if they talk about them at all. Or, in the case of CBR, from a content-farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources listed above. FlutterDash344 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments above. BOZ (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I agree with the arguments for keeping this are OK. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 31 August 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.