Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewind (Transformers)

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 speedy keep, nomination by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. –MuZemike 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind (Transformers)

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

Unsourced and non-notable. Wholly the synthesis of some twelve year old's overactive imagination. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE and KEEP - A horrible and incorrect rational. This is a new user, a teenager, who already has warnings, has been editing for about a week, and has done nothing but antagonize people about Transformers articles. We have already had THREE cases of this sort of editor harassing the Transformers Wiki Project. All ended up nominating articles, then getting blocked. Mathewignash (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dunno what to do with this, really. This is a spectacularly minor TF character who isn't even mentioned by name in the one source the article cites, so anything approaching the GNG seems highly unlikely. The nominator's rationale is just as spectacularly uncivil and screams bad faith, though. In an ordinary AfD I would !vote delete, but this does not look like an ordinary AfD at first blush. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to go with Procedural keep as WP:POINT violation by nom. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to tag the article as needing more references, that's completely appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This whole nomination seems invalid, judging by the user's recent comments on User talk:Divebomb at least, I think this entire nomination is an example of WP:POINT. JIP | Talk 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Oh great, here we go with the WP:POINT violations again. As for the non-notability, I will attempt to address the lack of sources later.--Divebomb (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we can speedy close and keep this article, I have no problem with Divebomb cleaning up this article like he has been doing with other minor Transformers articles until the time comes when the articles gets more sources. Mathewignash (talk) 10:47, 10 November 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.