Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorbeast

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. Courcelles 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorbeast

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

Disputed prod. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate real-world notability. NotARealWord (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - The sources don't seem to meet notability criteria. Possibly merge to List_of_Beast_Wars_characters, but the subject would have to be mentioned at the target of course per the principle of least astonishment. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to say possibly redirect to List_of_Beast_Wars_characters after mentioning the subject there, pardon. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He was on the Fresh prince of Bel Air! Gotta keep. Mathewignash (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Razorbeast appeared as a toy Will Smith played with on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, even doing voices for the toys." Referenced to the episode. That's the sort of trivia that would be removed from most articles. If that's the best you can do... J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's real world notability OUTSIDE the fiction, as the character is being referenced in another TF show. Shows it's popularity and notability. Mathewignash (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not really a "reliable source" - please see the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed on the article when it was deprodded. When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. —Farix (t | c) 17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - I just added a non-primary book source for the character. Mathewignash (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which you have used to cite basic information. That does strike me at first glance as a decent source, but a good source with which to reference character lists- it hardly, in this case, demonstrates the individual notability of the character. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite recent addition of source, it is not enough to highlight independent notability, and thus fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary notability is having been used as a prop in one scene of a sitcom. Sorry, not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2010 (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.