Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallen (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen (Transformers)

[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)

Has been languishing in the notability area for two months now, checked google and found no sources about the character, only talking about the transformers movies themselves. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the record I personally don't think two months is a particularly long time for something to have notability tags for, considering Wikipedia is a part-time hobby for editors (unless you guys are getting paid, in which case tell me how!). At the risk of invoking Other Stuff Exists, just the comics section alone has multiple articles that have been tagged for a decade-plus (many potentially violating BLP) which need more urgent attention, which once again suggests the nominator is following some sort of personal agenda rather than a genuine desire to improve the wider project. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a personal agenda, a personal agenda to rid Wikipedia of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which you're focusing almost entirely on a single toy franchise in a non-constructive manner, which several experienced Wikipedians have asked you to modify and your answer has been to resort to petty "" responses. For someone aiming for "a Wikipedia with zero incidents of disruption" you're sure going out of your way to create as many as possible despite several recommendations that you work on constructive repair work before getting overly-involved in AfDs and the like. Remember, you're supposed to have only have returned to editing a month ago... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:08, 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.