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 delete. The few "keep" votes here aren't very convincing, especially the "speedy keep" based on an AFD from 2008. Redirect seems plausible, but more commenters favored deletion. RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motormaster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Still non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article appears to meet the general notability guideline. It is well referenced. Interstellarity (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe if all you do is glance at the sources for three seconds. There's absolutely nothing good there, and I'm not confident the fan sites even count as reliable sources. TTN (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take a look at the dates there? I know you have a knack for nonsensical wikilaywering instead of addressing actual issues, but the last one was over ten years ago. TTN (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any more reliable secondary sources than any other Transfomers fancruft character article. Apparently some others think they exist, they must be hiding because I can't see them. A delete nomination 10 years later is not disruptive in the slightest._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone use the source assess table on the 13 sources so we can save time on this issue? ミラ P 23:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article passes WP:GNG. with WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Seriously, somebody show me these sources, because either I'm crazy or nobody knows the proper standard of required sources for fiction. TTN (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independent source — neither website nor biblio. Most of the sources in the article are fan websites. Only one independent book is cited in the footnotes (The Official Overstreet Comic Book Companion by Overstreet), but I guess it barely mentions the topic since it is a single ref in the article. The article does not pass WP:GNG. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. "Well referenced?" To what? Primary sources like TV epidodes, comics, and press releases about toys? Some people may need a topic ban from AfD for repeated invalid keep votes... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons where there are mentions. You cant just throw out WP:GNG in a "keep" opinion without explaining why this subject passes it. I think that the references can be salvaged as primary for the character list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons#Combiner Teams. Fan sites are not reliable sources and TV episode listings do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actual reliable, secondary sources have not been provided regarding the character, nor have I been able to find any. Thus, this character utterly fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2019 (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.