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 Merge some of it somewhere. Action to be carried out by interested editors outside of AFD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airraptor[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability and a vehicle for unencyclopedic fancruft. (I will x-post this same point to other relevant AfDs) Eusebeus (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes pleanty of references to unrelated sites, and it's been expanded on several times. I took particular care to delete some fancruft from the article, like fan theories on the character's origin, and made sure to site varied sources. It should be good now. Mathewignash (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of Transformers characters 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't exist. I oppose merging or deleting, but if you merged it, shouldn't it be with pages more like Dinobots? Mathewignash (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of characters. I'll dissect the nomination:

"This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers" That means it shouldn't get a separate article, doesn't say anything about deletion.
"through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources." It includes information on the real world toy. Whether the source is reliable is up for debate.
"Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details." Apart from a single sentence, everything is referenced. (no OR) and you can't describe something fictional without plot details. I would say this article keeps plot details to a bare minimum (a lot less than most of the articles you nominate).
"There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." There doesn't need to be (WP:DEADLINE) and again, no extended coverage does not equate no coverage at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - not enough notability established for a separate article. Mgm: I fail to see how the existence of a toy conveys any additional notability. Siawase (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't but it suitable for inclusion in a list because it would help coverage of a toy line that is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after discussion on the appropriate talk page; since none of the reason given would apply if the content or a suitable part of it were merged into a combination article on these, or at least redirected, there is no case for outright deletion. See above for further discussion. DGG (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list article as this is not a major or recurring character. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no appropriate list to merge to, and I suspect that if one were created, it would be listcruft. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 19 December 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.