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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons[edit]

List of Decepticons (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 never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized.

— Mathewignash, [1]

I would have expected someone to delete List of Decepticons, which is a worthless idea for an article in the first place, made even more worthless by its inability to decide whether it's a list of characters or a list of toys. If this is really a "something has to give" scenario where the raw number of Transformers articles is too high, then go after the dumb jive like that.

— ▲ndrusi/Andrusi, [2]

(Perhaps some people may find it strange that I'm quoting somebody from an off-site discussion that was mainly complaining about Wikipedia. However, I do admit that the quoted post does at least have some point.)

Seriously, this article seems a terrible idea. A collection of bluelinks with a couple of words next to each bluelink. Don't think this passes WP:LSC. Not all of the entires are notable, (notice how some of those bluelinks redirect back to this article) so not a "list of notable things". Apparently "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" are allowed, but there are craploads of characters who fall under "Decepticons". This list is too long for that.

Also, original research problem. Some Decepticons are described in this list as being specific models of vehicles (" Soundwave - Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" as the description for Soundwave as he appeared in Transformers: Cybertron), original research if they weren't specifically described as those vehicles. Considering that many of these vehicle forms aren't actually licensed from their manufacturers, the characters' resemblance to them is probably not very much. If the similartites between the two (the character and the actual vehicle) are not obvious enough that the toymaker has to acquire a license or is at risk of a lawsuit, then it seems to be original research if not properly sourced. NotARealWord (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeRewrite to only list the ones with articles, and turn this article into a directory of sorts. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if that would work. See those redirects, most (all?) of 'em used to be articles that got put through AfD. A lot of deleted articles keep getting redirected here for some reason. Of all the remaining characters with articles, I'm not sure how many of 'em actually are notable. NotARealWord (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed List of The Transformers characters#Decepticons, which probably lists all the notable Decepticons. Merge to that location. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, what? "List of The Transformers characters" is a list of characters from The Transformers. As in the original TV series. That article has a separate scope from this one. The problem with the "List of Decepticons" article is that it lists every single Decepticon across the entire history of the transformers brand. (Well, not quite but rather close). I think even "List of The Transformers characters" is too long really. Or will be too long if it were properly written. So, I'm against merge, considering that I'm actually in the process of splitting that article. NotARealWord (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, well there needs to be some way to list all the ones that have articles to help readers find them. Maybe a table list. I contacted the Transformers project and suggested that they clean up their character articles, which will include sweeping most of them under the rug so they don't get sucked up by the vacuum. Once they do this, smaller List of Autobots and List of Decepticons can be made only listing notable ones. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For the time being nothing better exists. I'd consider deletion AFTER there are better list to redirect to, by series for instance. Mathewignash (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Perhaps the article needs a reorganization instead of being deleted. --TX55^TALK 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm honestly floored that someone would think this was a good idea. Transformers are a big deal, and the fact that we managed to grow waaaaay too many articles doesn't mean a list-format article covering one of the two biggest factions should be deleted. "Decepticon" is a notable term, per Google News archive, so it's clear that a list of them belongs. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting that any notable (fictional) organization deserves a list of every single member? This kind of list gives no coverage on its items, so I can't see how this article is a good idea. Don't see how this is allowed, either (see my nominating statement). How does WP:LSC or any such guideline/policy allow this kind of list? It's mainly a bunch of bluelinks. I think a list that doesn't explain its items works if they're all notable and have articles, but not all of these are notable. Plus, "Decepticon" also includes characters who have never appeared in any media. Why would any sort of character who hasn't done anything deserve a mention on WP? NotARealWord (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say anything "deserves a list of every single member". The contents of the list are not being discussed here, the existence of the list has been challenged. WP:LSC is a MOS entry, describing how information should be presented; it doesn't "allow" (or "prohibit", for that matter) anything. Please educate yourself on WP:NNC--specifically, that it is an option to limit certain lists to notable entries, rather than any sort of requirement. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, how do you justify a list that is "dumb jive" as described above? Or is there any way to make this list less like "dumb jive"? Are there any options to take with the contents of this list? Also, yeah, notability doesn't limit article content, but this list looks more like it was a navigation list, what with how the individual entries are not given coverage within, but it really can't be since may entries don't really deserve an article. Plus, this list rather takes WP:NNC to the extreme, indiscriminately mentioning really important plot-driving characters along with obscure ones that only had a toy release, giving equal coverage to either (equal as in, very little). Anyway, this is neither a navigation list (may of those bluelinks redirect back here), nor is it an explanation list (very little information on any of the characters). So, is this even fixable? If yes, then how?

NotARealWord (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean-up or even split into a better organization if someone can figure it out. The quality of this list is pretty poor. But it doesn't fundamentally fail any policy or guideline. Deceptikons are definitely a notable and discriminate class of things. This list needs a little attention that's all. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Clean up how? It's rather frustrating to have a page that can be fixed yet not knowing how to fix it. Also,if this is split, we don't really need any of the data from this page. It just contains bluelinked names and very short (yet somehow occasionally filled with original research) descriptions of the characters' alternate modes. Nothing that can't easily be rewritten from scratch. the information on each character here is literallyjust the name followed by three words. NotARealWord (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I apologize for making such a general statement but Decepticons as a group are notable as a result from Transformers. The article itself though is utter crap, it would look loads better in a table that it is right now, like in List of Donkey Kong video games or any other of the Featured Lists. But that's something you'll have to take up with the primary editors of this article and the Transformers Wikiproject. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think any of those featured lists mix up important characters with those that only ever received a toy release and never appeared in any media whatsoever. Seriously, this list seems to be partially a list of toys. NotARealWord (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when does article content rather than its real-world reception factor in on its Notability? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. I'll take this as a bad faith nomination. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First off, quoting people as you have done at the start of this AFD is ridiculous, especially when you know one of them would say keep. Transformers is a notable series and listing all the characters in it is fine. A complete list is necessary for a proper encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any idea how many Transformers characters there are? It's not just the TV shows, comic books, films and video games, there are characters who literally never appeared in any media. Why would it be encyclopedic to list those guys who never really showed up or even did anything? NotARealWord (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list would be incomplete otherwise. The article has to prove itself notable, not everything on the list. And size is never a valid reason to try to erase content. Dream Focus 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is no real reason to delete this article. JDDJS (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seriously? The "notability police" are really stretching further and further all the time to delete things they don't like. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you even read the AfD? this isn't about "notability". It's about how this list is worthless utter crap and not really helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not liking something, is not a valid reason for destroying it. See WP:Idon'tlikeit Dream Focus 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not worthless and unhelpful. It helps the reader find what character they are looking for. There has to be something to link all those articles together, or else you would never find them, unless you remember their name, which we shouldn't expect the reader to know by heart. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting that this should be a navigation list? Many of those luelinks redirect back here. If this list was meant for navigation, then it shouldn't link back to itself. NotARealWord (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Not a serious vote) - Keep per Wikipedia's systemic bias against Transformers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and reorganize- The nominator is absolutely correct in saying that the list as it stands is untenable. Clearly the word Decepticon is not precise enough, given that we could be talking about toys, cartoon characters, even different toy models of the same charcater. So this list is a hodge-podge of different but related subjects. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 12 February 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.