Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransack (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - default to keep FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying some background and norms:

  • We do have articles on "multiple characters who share a name", whether related, in the same topic area, or unrelated. Minor characters in a series or closely-related series often share a "list of minor characters in X" article.
  • The main question is notability of the topic - while split/merge/disambiguate can rectify a non-notable article, if it's notable then how it's presented and whether it's split is a pure content issue not an AFD issue.
  • The first "Ransack" AFD closed as "no consensus" even after a relist, and this 2nd nomination just 3 weeks later needed a relist as well. But reopening the unclear AFD (provided it's not tendentious which this one isn't) is not inherently a problem though it might annoy some.

Most of the discussion is a repeat of the previous one, and the discussion doesn't seem to have provided any particularly strong consensus either way this time too. Poor structure is a content issue; the encyclopedia can and doews hold articles on connected and unconnected characters of the same name so that's not a real reason to delete. Future mentions aren't helpful (WP:CRYSTAL) and absence on Fox/CNN is not really good evidence that the article is unable to be sourced from other reliable sources. A tighter focus on availability/analysis/quality of sources would have helped clarify notability. Closing as "no consensus" on this one as well.

Discussion on splitting/merging/improving sources is encouraged, but relisting unless something significantly changes is probably going to annoy people.
FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ransack

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ransack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Plus, this article is about multiple, entirely separate characters who just happen to share a name. I'm against the split-and-merge suggested in the previous AfD since all of these Ransacks are minor characters. The most important one being the Transformers: Cybertron character who was a minor recurring villain. He is already covered under List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. The other Ransacks are even less important. NotARealWord (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your rationale for bringing this up a second time a mere three weeks after the last closure is that you do not agree with the previous outcome? --Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which character lists? The only Ransack who's slightly important is already covered.

NotARealWord (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "per NOTAGAIN". I made my recommendation per the editing policy, alternatives to deletion and Before nominating an article for deletion, not per NOTAGAIN.--Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Notability - I wanted to mention that Ransack is one of the villians in this years annual Botcon comic. I've read it at the convention already. This comic will be released to the general public in a few months, where I'm sure it will get some third party reviews online that we can add as yet more sources. I hope this article is still here to have those sources added. Mathewignash (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name." -- (User:TheFarix at previous AfD)

Yes, these characters are completely incidental and unimportant, as far as I can tell. I also reiterate how an article should not be structured like this, covering a bunch of unrelated characters that just happen to share a name. NotARealWord (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Also, Merging requires content to cut-and-paste and a destination page for that content to be on. It seems Revenge of the Fallen Ransack has did some stuff, but that was in a minor comic, (possibly not notable enough for it's own character list,) and said stuff wasn't mentioned in the article. As for the Ransack that had a role in the BotCon comic, I'm not even sure that Transformers: Timelines (the BotCon related media) is notable enough in itself. NotARealWord (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a good example on how not to structure a Transformers character article. Six entirely unrelated characters from different continuities, who just happen to share the same name. They should not be all in the same article. Notable ones should get their own articles, non-notable ones just a mention in the continuity's character list article. JIP | Talk 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is somethong like that. This article simply should not be here. It's not an "unfinished house", but more of an architectural mess. NotARealWord (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NotARealWord I usually agree with your nonimations for deletion this article was nominated recently and feel it will result in a stalemate again. I believe there are many much more deserving cases of deletion than this at the moment. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge to what? There's not even an article for the Titan Magazines comic. Which is the only TF media other than the Cybertron anime in which somebody named Ransack did anything close to important. The other Ransacks are pretty much nobody. NotARealWord (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say just merge. Some stuff needs to be merged, some stuff needs to be trimmed out, some could possibly be split. There's no reason why the totality of the information on this page needs to be preserved. However, this is way too soon for another nomination, and these actions don't require AfD. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which stuff needs merging? Seriously, the secion on the Cybertron Ransack doesn't look like they'd work in character lists. There is no list to merge Revenge of the Fallen Ransack to, and the others are really unimportant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's my point. Why are people suggesting to merge if there's no place to merge the content. Also, looking at the section on Cybertron Ransack, most of the stuff is plot summary and doesn't belong in a character list. NotARealWord (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more non-AFD discussion should take place on where such a place could be made, then, instead of this going back to AFD so soon. --Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{At Malkinann) What place? As I've mentioned, most of these characters are nobodies. One Ransackhas done important stuff, but the media he did said stuff in might not be notable enough for it's own character list. Merging means that some content is directly cut-and-paste to another location. And,regarding "Armada" Ransack, I don't think there's a character list for him either. NotARealWord (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Armada (comics) has the start of a character list. --Malkinann (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, merging still requires direct cut-and-paste of content. At most, Ransack would just be mentioned as part of his team instead of as an individual. NotARealWord (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe turning the article into a disambiguation could work. Even if there are no destinations for merging, the data would still exist in the page history, and the disambig could still mention the various media these characters appeared in. That way, information can be incorporated into character lists whenever somebody decides to do so. Plus, we wouldn't have such an awful article. I'm fine as long as we don't keep an article this terrible. NotARealWord (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good idea. If any of the characters are notable enough to get their own articles, the disambiguation page could link to them, otherwise to character list articles. If the list articles have sections, then the disambiguation page should link to as specific sections as possible. JIP | Talk 19:29, 22 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ransack_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166124800"