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. There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon[edit]

Omnicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what the hell? "At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? "'need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? That's some confusing wording. Also, as Reyk said, this is a group of characters. Not 'a character. Sometimes I wonder if you just copy-paste your deletion rationales withoutactually checking if they're appropriate. NotARealWord (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know,even though I'm not for keeping this, Mignash does have a point. It's not easy to take your nominations as good faith if it seems like you don't actually look at the articles. NotARealWord (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One poorly incorrectly worded nomination does not demonstrate a catalogue of bad faith nominations.Mathewignash likes accusing myself and others who don't think mediocore articles merly out of of malicous spite and nothing more. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first suspicious thing. You recently AfD-ed the type of articles you had earlier suggested to merge. With some rather strange wording (see here for elaboration on that). I also recall at some point last year you just copypasted your delete votes across multiple pages, even when it wasn't quite relevant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By, "that nomination", you mean which thing? The copypasta-ing was from you voting in other people's nominations, among other (inappropriate) things, not your own nominations, if I recall correctly. NotARealWord (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were complaining about a typo mistake I made in another nomination but nevertheless. I have not done anything illegal or against wikipedia's rules to my knowledge. It not illegal to nominate more than one article at once. If it is an issue of how I word nominations I shall be more explicit in the future. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know what inappropriate things have I done in nominations not mine. I would like to know what I am being accused of. But I feel its diverting from this nomination. No doubt Mathewignash will use sources with at best tenuous relevant to justify keeping this article active (as he has history of it). I still believe this article has insufficient sources to support this article notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh it is not illegal to "nominate more than one article at once". I've done a lot of that. But please, don't sound like you were too lazy to check what the article subject is. The "inappropriate things" you've done are basically that, not paying attention to the articles and stuff discussed/nominated when commenting/voting. Or at least sounding like you don't (see this reply I left to a comment you put as a non-AfD example.) NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think something important here is that whether you like the article or not, whether it fits the guidelines or not, other people put work into it. From the looks of the history, over a dozen registered editors added to this article. If you want to come in and delete other people's hard work, at the very least you should be required to read and understand the article and give it the respect those writers deserve. Putting in some cut-and-paste reasoning, one that's not even correctly describing the article, without any actual research is a major sign of disrespect to your fellow authors. I've seen lots of articles I don't like, but I don't try to delete them, I try to IMPROVE them, or I leave them to those who know more about the subject. Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:16, 17 March 2011 (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.
More