Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Jerk

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. OR, no notability, unsourced, everything. If anyone would like the deleted content to have a go at making a decent - sourced! - "List of...." article, please contact me. Otherwise the correct place for these is at the Zoids Wikia, which is where the information already is. Black Kite 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Jerk

These elements of the Zoids series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and extremely trivial statistics and model and toy details. TTN (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages

TTN (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I think the toy details in all these articles are salvageable. Why didn't you suggest merging the verifiable info on all these articles in a list. To have a list of characters that are notable in the fictional universe you don't need too strict sources because they don't need to be independently notable - instead such a list would allow for that to fall upon the article on the main universe of Zoids. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all so people can work on the appropriate merges. This sort of nomination is not helpful.
Keep all, then work on appropriate merges to a list.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible way to make a meaningful list out of these. There are very few important ones throughout the different pieces of media, and those pieces of media already cover them or have the means to cover them in enough detail. TTN (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that--you say there is media available that provides the material to identify them, so the list will have content. How will it not be meaningful? We don't avoid covering in Wikipedia things that are covered elsewhere, and that seem s to be your argument. DGG (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are maybe five or six that actually play a role instead of acting as a generic military vehicle like most of the others (Liger Zero and Blade Liger being the only ones I can think of). I plan on merging or redirecting those to their proper series after the rest are removed. TTN (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there is little sense in deleting this content. Reducing in universe content and merging most to a list? Yes, but AFD is not the proper place to bring that up. I would be in favor of evaluating the individuals articles, and discussing which should be kept, and which should be merged.kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I don't see any difference from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías. Non notable characters, unreferenced information, unverified specifications, etc. etc. It reminds me of WP:POKEMON. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/merge all to List of Zoids. Experience has shown that not even the highly notable Pokémon franchise can support individual character articles on a grand scale (WP:NOTABILITY issues). These articles also seem like a weird mix of of plot and a sales catalog, both part of WP:NOT, and I do not see a possibility to improve them to an encyclopedic standard. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to the Zoids Wikia if they are not already listed there. I agree with the nom on the reasons why they don't belong here, but we shouldn't throw everything into the proverbial furnace when we can find another home out there for them; in this case, there is already a portion of Wikia dedicated to the Zoids. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they've already been moved over there. The articles I looked at match their counterparts here. TTN (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Since everything is already on Zoids Wikia and they fail notability in Wikipedia. -- nips (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Redirect to "List of Zoids". Admittedly, a lot of these articles are an utter mess. I vote to keep articles for the few that actually ARE notable, such as Gojulas and Liger Zero, (a model kit of the former is even on display at the British Natural History Museum in their "Dinosaurs in popular culture" exhibit!) which play story relavent roles in a broad spectrum of fiction readily avaliable to english speaking audiences. The rest (such as background Zoids like the Helcat and Guysak, Japan only Zoids such as the Rainbow Jerk and Murasame Liger, and Zoids that only appeared as toys such as the D.A. Lizards)) we can fork into a list.

K00bine (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above Dloh cierekim 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per Sguereka; the comparison to Pokemon is especially apt. Nifboy (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as original research. 98.247.30.19 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N (and WP:V). No prejudice against people who want to WP:USERFY articles that they have a good faith belief can be improved, despite this lack of sources. Articles can be re-created when issues are addressed. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (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.