Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swoop (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 redirect to Dinobot. And merge such content as may be appropriate.  Sandstein  17:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swoop (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a grouping of similarly named characters that fails to establish notability. Other than one minor "top eight" article, all the references only reinforce fictional details and obscure toy details that don't belong in an article in the first place. There are various Transformers character lists that can handle the fictional details in appropriately brief summaries, so a separate article is not necessary at this time. TTN (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there may be sources on Dinobot which could be used for this character; otherwise merge to that article. No solid reason to delete outright. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as this is best connected to Transformers and is still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I'll go along with a merge to Dinobot. I don't think Cracked.com and price guides are good enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this may not be as important of a character as the related Grimlock, but looking over the two unsuccessful AFDs on that article, I see that several users found a reason to keep it (including GoodDay, Dream Focus, Mark viking, Colonel Warden, and Jclemens) so maybe they can find sources to improve this article as well? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we've got individual articles on the four other Dinobots. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Should we have, though? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems appropriate. If it is kept (and I think I'd want to see some more secondary sources before supporting that), it should be cut back quite significantly. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dinobots. What content are editors suggesting should be merged? The character is mentioned within the Dinobots so a redirect is feasible and appropriate. There are virtually no reliable secondary sources in this article and I don't see how merging this is going to improve the target, in fact it will lead to serious undue problems. AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2016 (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.