Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Liger

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 no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Liger

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exists almost entirely of real world information and nominator made no reasonable effort to verify the information as required by WP:AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same argument as before. Saying something is "too trivial" is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No bad faith present. Reasons to keep are ad hominem attacks against the nom. MuZemike (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination is in total good faith: the nominator does want the article deleted, and says why he thinks so. To say his reasons are inadequate is not an accusation of bad faith. DGG (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's obvious the nom didn't read the article, the assumption is bad faith. Jtrainor (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MGM and especially DGG. 'Too trivial' isn't a good reason for deletion, and essentially amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination makes total sense. The article has zero references, so it can't possibly establish notability. Notability isn't automatic, it needs to be shown. Merely being "one of over 200 species of biomechanical lifeforms depicted by TOMY's Zoids model, toy, and media franchise" doesn't make it de facto worth an independent article (are there notability guidelines for toys? If there are, I severely doubt they say "every toy automatically deserves its own article"). This is similar to the deletion discussions of the hundreds of Pokemon articles: if you stripped out the in-depth plot summary and trimmed the toy details down to some decent prose, you'd have maybe one paragraph of real-world content, and it would still be unreferenced. I would have recommended merger into List of Zoids, but the list seems to consist of nothing but names without any accompanying details, and anyway when there are no references there can be nothing to merge. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, according to Wikipedia policy, lack of references is NOT reason for deletion. The article is subject to deletion only if no references exist to establish notability. Notability should be established in the article by references and citations, but if it is not established but can be established, the article shouldn't be deleted. Nominators and those commenting on AFD's are required to verify for themselves whether notability can be established beforedeciding to delete or not. If the article MUST have references establishing notability in the article or it should be deleted, then none of the guidelines would say to search for evidence of notability before nomination/before !voting to delete. The guidelines do in fact say to search for evidence of notability, and if any can be found, either cite the sources yourself, or place an appropriate cleanup tag on the article. The point of AFD is not to delete any article that doesn't have sufficient references. That is what cleanup tags are for. It should only be used to delete articles that have no notability established or able to be established. I am not voting one way or another on this article, but the lack of references are NOT valid criteria for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the deletion policy suggests searching for sources before an AFD and it is wrong to do so. WP:V, a core policy that defines Wikipedia, says it is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to find sources, WP:PROVEIT. We should be able to delete unsourced material without discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources found establish that it existed but not notable. It is no more notable than any other of the 5 billion toys out there. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try some more realistic numbers. There might be 5 million, not billion, different toys ever produced; these products are from a major franchise, and it would seem reasonable that they are among the top 1% of such toys. that's 50,000. We can well have 50,000 articles on toys, not being a paper encyclopedia--the most notable 1% of any thing is arguably notable. But we do not have to say that. At the very least, these toys collectively are probably notable, and if so, we would at the least redirect to an article on them. not delete. That's a perversion of orderly process. so would be redirecting or merging without discussion, of course. I note the nominator seems to be doing that as well for the last week of so, in very large numbers. DGG (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (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.