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. Invoking WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron[edit]

Megatron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:TNT: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. That is very much the case with this article, which is entirely FANDOM style plot summary and little that would be relevant to non-fans. In its current state, the article is very much unencyclopedic and as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement (much less anyone willing to even touch the article to fix it due to its sheer length). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:TNT is an essay, and while I agree with the concern that the bulk of the article is documenting in-universe appearances of the character, the character is also one of the most significant in the Transformers franchise. As such, deletion seems a bit extremist to me, versus making an effort to focus on more real-world content and probably trim down the in-universe material. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The proverbial can has been kicked down the road ever since 2004, 18 years ago. Saying that it could potentially be fixed does not merit a blatantly WP:NOT article remaining there for what will soon be 2 decades. Transformers does give enough info about Megatron for most to understand his importance as the villain of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've been here since late 2004, roughly the last 17.5 of those 18 years, and you haven't fixed this article. Why not? You edited a category in late 2017, so you've presumably been aware of this problem for 4.5 years. Are you assuming zero ownership of helping to clean up articles? Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See also WP:SOLVE and WP:VOLUNTEER. I am not employed by Wikipedia so if an article doesn't interest me in fixing it just doesn't, although I still feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles, it seems odd to me that you haven't said anything at the article's Talk page, nor to the best of my awareness at the projects listed at the article's Talk page. AfD seems an unusual first stop for claling attention to an article.You may want to review WP:BEFORE. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article contains plenty of references from IGN, MTV and USA Today that establish notability. The sheer length of the article is a problem that can be fixed outside of AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The OP's argument and rejection of the notion the article could potentially be fixed, citing the lack of improvements by competent editors from the past 20 years as a reason, directly contradicts their own statement that deletion of the article "could help encourage a new article". Not only is it pure speculation as well as an unreasonable expectation of other editors to make the proposed improvements instead of the OP doing it themselves, the nomination's rationale also does not follow Wikipedia's deletion policy. WP:TNT is an essay that provides advice about how to deal with problematic or poorly framed content, including the editorial method of bolding removing or blanking prose and reducing the article to a stub-length as a way of "starting over". WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST however, are extensions of Wikipedia's basic notability guideline. Because article content does not determine notability and notability is based on the existence of suitable sources as opposed to the state of sourcing in an article, this nomination has failed to argue a case on why the article itself should be deleted. There is clear evidence of significant coverage from sources like this Indonesian academic journal article or this book which has devoted significant pages to discussing Megatron. By all means, reduce the plot-heavy article to a stub and start over with better sources, but that is purely an editorial concern and not relevant for an AfD discussion. Haleth (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Feel free to go ahead and edit out the excessive plot, but the fictional element is clearly notable. TNT is neither a policy nor guideline, so this is borderline speedy keep territory: if the problem can be fixed by editing, to include vicious excision of useless or overly detailed information, deletion is not appropriate. Anyone who seriously questions the notability of the main antagonist in Transformers is runs afoul of either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR--not saying the nom makes this argument, but noting that it is--correctly--not even remotely in play. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close. Not a great nom. Take a flamethrower to the text but AFD is no place for it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has apropriate sourcing. //Julle (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Decepticon. This is a major fancruft mess, with 98% being uneferenced, and no reception section. The cultural legacy is a WP:NOTTVTROPES-style list. This might be notable, but WP:TNT applies. That said, rather than hard delete I think a redirect is sufficient, since if/when this is rewritten in a way that complies with our core policies (GNG, V, etc.) a few tidbits might be reused. But we cannot keep it in the current shape, since the article totally fails to estabilish it's notability (and nobody has done so here citing proper sources that discuss this in a WP:SIGCOV way and are independent). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't be serious with your redirection suggestion. Have you seen the state of the Decepticon article, or how it cites barely five secondary sources? I would have expected that articles like these would be sent to AfD well before articles which are poorly written but are still supported with plenty of cited sources. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, given the indeed terrible state of the Decepticon article, I am changing my preferred redirect format to the generic article about this series/franchise. And I'll try to remember to review that other article and maybe bring it here if the sourcing doesn't check out. Happy? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. TNT is an essay, WP:PRESERVE is a policy. "delete the content to help encourage a new article", "as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement", these arguments are never true. Improvements come not because an absence of content. 182.1.72.196 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I'm concerned, a page for the primary antagonist of a long-running and successful franchise is automatically exempt from deletion, no matter how badly the page itself is written. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing admin is well-advised to consider the "quality" of arguments used here, and remember that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: TNT only applies to articles that can't be fixed through simple editing. This one can. See the counter-argument essay WP:TNTTNT. Someone as iconic as Megatron is bound to have tons of coverage, and Haleth has provided some above. MoonJet (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. Megatron is easily one of the most notable transformers, and I don't see a reason to throw the whole article out when more selective text removals can be done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:THEREISNORUSH, etc. I've supported deletions based on TNT before, but those were short articles with POV/COI/advertising issues. "There's too much here" is the opposite kind of problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the posts above. The article badly needs improvement, not deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG. I have no problem with distilling the article down to a list of appearances, but deletion is not needed. Looking for sources...

• The book Transformers and Philosophy shows Megatron in its index for many pages: 35, 81, 100-01, 111-12, 127, 133, 162, 167, 171, 182, 193-197, 201-05, 208-09, 231; leadership, 90, 148-49, 156-58, 171-72, 179, 197-200. One chapter in the book is, "Megatron, Fascist Philosopher".
• It also looks like Megatron is mentioned on ten clustered pages in a chapter about Transformers in the book The Galaxy Is Rated G: Essays on Children's Science Fiction Film and Television as seen here.
• The book Robots That Kill Deadly Machines and Their Precursors in Myth, Folklore, Literature, Popular Culture and Reality has mentions of Megatron on pages 28, 110-111, 114, 141 here.
• Comic Book Resources has numerous articles with Megatron in the headline here, like the article "Transformers: How More than Meets the Eye Changed Megatron", which is an example of a secondary source that tracks how the character has changed over the years.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG. Article may be disorganized/cluttered, but a deletion by WP:TNT may not be necessary as discussed above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. I see the issues with the article, but this isn't a fundamental issue of notability. There would be some aspects here to preserve. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2022 (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.