Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek vs 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. Strong consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability, despite a need for further clean-up (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek vs Transformers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little in the way of coverage, only the first two sentences are sourced (to Gizmodo), the rest is an extremely over-long description of the plot of the first and so far only issue of this comic. Open to the idea that this could be merged to an appropriate target, but it doesn’t seem notable enough for a stand-alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that the current article is in bad shape, but it has received notable coverage from reliable sources. There's certainly enough material available to build decent sections for publication history and critical reception. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The excessive plot summary needs to be trimmed down, but there's definitely enough in the way of sources for at least a decent encyclopedic stub. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've gone in and dramatically shortened the Issue 1 summary, so that takes care of the biggest issue. And as stated before, there's been plenty of coverage in mainstream sources that can be used to flesh out the rest of the article out should someone be willing to work on it. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Though the article is complete and requires improvement it can be considered as a stub but qualifies WP:GNG because it has got coverage in independent reliable sources.Vinodbasker (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2018 (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.