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 to Cliffjumper. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffjumper (other incarnations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I decided like Bumblebee (Transformers Animated) that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion. There is a lack of sufficient third person sources to justify a spin off Cliffjumper article. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yet another strongarm attempt for the editor to force his will on articles without going through proper channels. He proposes a merger, then when he doesn't get a fast enough result he proposes a deletion in order to get his merger outcome. As far as I'm concened it's a dirty trick unworthy of support. Proposing a deletion in order to force merger means that the nomination was done in bad faith. Mathewignash (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Perhaps this just really needs to be said) It's not like you yourself haven't resorted to some form of trickery to get what you want. Here, you argued that Fuzor Silverbolt was reaaaally similar to the Aerialbot Silverbolt and that the two should be merged. Yet here, you argue that Beast wars Megatron should not be merged with the original Megatron. You're Silverbolt argument was riddled with errors. (only one Silverbolt was built on earth, and that was in the comic, so describin that as "in the second season of their series", isn't that accurate. Plus, Aerialbot Silverbolt had quite a bit of red, and Fuzor Silverbolt was no longer silver during Beast Machines. Also, see my comment on the "team flyers" thing.) Errors that someone like you seriously shouldn't make, considering how knowledgeable you sounded with you're earlier argument about Beast Wars Megatron. NotARealWord (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge trick or not, why was the merger not done? My position on this, Mathewignash, has not changed: One character, one article. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The merge was probably never done because not a single person voiced any support for it. Feel free to go support the merger the normal way, on the target talk page. Mathewignash (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NFICT. The various merger proposals in Transformers articles appear to not change over time because the handful of editors who edit/visit those pages are usually the fans who make them into these sprawling fictional plot articles in the first place, and usually don't vote for merge. AfD's are the only way to attract attention of the larger Wikipedia editing population.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yeah, I've noticed this. Nobody really pays attention when a merger is proposed. I don't think this is just the Transformers articles that suffer from this, though. Perhaps I'll someday use this to resurrect Articles for merging. NotARealWord (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge , but only if done properly, preserving information. It's this problem of preserving information that holds up merges. Sometimes it does go right, but more typically it ends up reduced to a single line. Not that extensive plot information has to be repeated for every character in a merge, but there's a reasonable intermediate DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The talk page of this article records a series of attempts to rename the procedure as Articles for Discussion. It has been approved two successive times, but nobody has done the work of implementing it. A current discussion on the matter seems to be leaning strongly towards rejecting it. See there for my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing that by "the procedure", you're referring to WP:Articles for merging, but I can't tell due to the strange placement of your comment. NotARealWord (talk) 15:44, 5 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.