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. Walton^One 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Relisting per decision to relist at AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICT... Also I'll mention WP:POKEMON for no reason and the fact that there are at least two Transformers wiki for the fancruft.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This reasoning is invalid and the vote should probably be ignored. This got relisted because I requested that it be restored so I can add a bunch of reliable sources. BEFORE I added the sources, this guy voted that it should be deleted for lacking sources!? How about letting me add those sources before you tell us there are none buddy? Mathewignash (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see the sources that have been added, unfortunately they are not accessible via internet but given their titles I doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article. That the toys/cartoons are notable is undeniable, but particular elements of Transformers are less likely to have their own notability according to WP:GNG. My delete !vote stands.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment according to WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no requirement that sources be online. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More reliable sources have been added. I am gathering more now. With the Ark appearing in the 2011 Transformers film, I'd imagine article about it will only increase as well. So basically this article now has some notability. Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The new sources have no page numbrs. Could you provide them in order to make verification easier.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations 5, 6, 10 and 12 have page numbers. Citations 4, 7, 8, and 9 don't need them as they are links to web pages. Most of the rest came e-copies of articles that don't have page numbers from their original printing included. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still just a collection of plot summary and product catalog. Citations verify the story and the products' existence -- but I see no significant coverage by multiple third-party sources offering the kind of commentary and development insight we require of topics anchored in fiction. --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You mean like the film review where the reviewer laments the Ark being left out of the 2007 film sort of commentary? Mathewignash (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which review?Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Number 11. Mathewignash (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is university Wire, is it RS? Also there is no page number, so the citation is incompleate. It seems that Uwire is not a publication, its a media disimination service. Where was the origional material published (I was not aware that college newpapers were RS). I suspect its not RS unless it can be established that the material was published by a repected journel.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from local university. Student reporters sharing articles. here is their web page. http://uwire.com/about/ Mathewignash (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 looks like a movie heads-up. We're looking for an essay focusing on this ship's concept and development, a chapter in a published text commenting on its design, a magazine article explaining how the subject is a reflection of or impacted other elements of fiction, etc. A passing reference in a back-end paragraph of some some college kid's newspaper article? Not so much. --EEMIV (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Student newspapers (and equivalent) are virtually never reliable sources. But for what it's worth I'd say the fact that they didn't bother to include it in the movie is, if anything, evidence that this isn't even especially important in the Transformers universe and further speaks against including it in a general-interest encyclopedia rather than the contrary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hasn't picked up any additional notability since last time we deleted it in August. Unlikely that another 6 months is going to make this a decent article, or a notable topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That's hardly a fair statement since it was deleted with NO THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES before, and now it has several. Mathewignash (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the deletion review to revive the article, the following case was made:

• The book "Totally Tubular 80's Toys" by Mark Bellomo has a page 112 talking about the Autobot ship Ark and how it got the Autobots to earth in the classic series.
• It's talked about in: "Transformers: an adult primer // Here's help understanding toy robots, the latest rage", Chicago Sun-Times; December 16, 1986; by Patricia Smith. The author gets parents up to date on the story of the Transformers, including what the Ark is.
• 'Transformers' coming to save planet Earth, summer cinema University Wire; July 2, 2007; by Michelle Castillo, the author complains about how they left the Ark out of the 2007 Transformers movie.

This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Notable sources are established. Dream Focus 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe the article needs expansion, but not deletion. --TX55^TALK 05:24, 13 January 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, Davewild (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, grossly fails the general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from independent third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was poor the first time with inadequate sources I see no significant improvement. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The original article had NO SOURCES. Now to has many, and somehow you "see no signifigant improvement"? That doesn't seem like an honest or fair statement. Mathewignash (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Summarize and Merge, or delete with a preference towards a merge. The article still fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it's just the story of the Ark with no other significant content. The sourcing has improved though... maybe not enough to pass the WP:GNG but that's moot because of the plot issues. My advice would be to expand a larger Transformers article or list using some of the sources... and spin it off once there is more out of universe information from reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 22 January 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.