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. essentially per rationale espoused partially by PhilKnight - there appears to be lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a list of appearances padded with in-universe/plot details. No real sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Okay, now you are just making jokes. Wheelie isn't notable? Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, where are the reliable sources? I'm sure these characters are of great importance within the universe, but I'm not seeing why they're important in the real world. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fictional character appears in multiple notable fictional works, such that there's no one good place to merge the content. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, though, there are absolutely no reliable sources. We don't have to merge the content anywhere. The fact there's nowhere to merge it is a pretty terrible keep argument. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if the problem is lack of references, add a tag that the article needs more references, not that it should be deleted. I have added some references, and have a couple books on order to add more references to this and several other articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is not the lack of references, the problem is that it is not clear that a decent, encyclopedic article could be written on the subject. If you genuinely think the article should be kept, cut out the in-universe trivia snd show that there is genuinely an encyclopedic topic to write about here. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I might mention this page was nominated for deletion 6 years ago, and was kept, although moved from Wheelie to Wheelie (Transformers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wheelie Mathewignash (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, again, no reliable sources were found, and a lot of people thought it should be merged somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are reliable sources now, you just seem intent on ignoring them (including movie guides who talk about Wheelie and newspaper reviews talking about him in the film specifically!). The last deletion survey had FOUR people who wanted to keep or rename the article, 2 who wanted to merge it with other articles, and one delete vote. This article is CLEARLY worthy of keeping. If you want to help IMPROVE it, please do so - you seem to be very experienced in what makes a good Wikipedia article. Helpful suggestions are appreciated. Mathewignash (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cutting out the trivia would be the place to start. "Bumblebee was once mistake for Wheelie when he visited Axiom Nexus."- who cares? That's worthy of a subsection?! Brief cameos and passing mentions do not need to be discussed, unless they have been picked up on by reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, assertions that references exist are not sufficient. Where's the beef? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After six years still no independent sources that can WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. "Transformers World" is a self-published website and can't really tell us much about the notability of this character. Article cannot be fixed to meet WP:V and WP:N which state "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but no independent sources? The animated movie guide By Jerry Beck? Dallas Christian Living Examiner, article "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" by Chris Esparza? Both published sources from completely outside the Transformers community. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An animated movie is not a source, and the newspaper article, while a decent source (probably the only one in there...) isn't about this character, it's about the film. Even then, it is used to reference the idea that "Some film reviewers commented on the negative racial sterotype of Wheelie's character.". Hardly evidence that we need a whole entire article to discuss the character... J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an animated movie guide,a BOOK that was published. No one source ALONE enough, but people are collecting them to improve this article. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Wheelie (Transformers) (2nd nomination)[reply]

*Keep - Wheelie say save the page today! Who could forget the ryhming kid Transformer? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)See [1] for striking reasons[reply]

• • Sorry, what? Do you have any evidence that the subject is notable? J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be a reference to Wheelie's original appearance back in 1986. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGKZ3qhYKvA Mathewignash (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NOT ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE UNDER WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely no significant coverage about the character in multiple reliable sources. Merging to a minor character list would be the normal sequence of events here, but none appears to exist, which is probably telling. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably telling what? That for years all the characters had their own articles, so no one ever bothered making a list to combine them. Dream Focus 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretending Youtube is a reliable source?! I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. —CodeHydro 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable character in a notable series, found first in their original animated film, then featured in different animated series, comic books, and toy lines. Dream Focus 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A character does not become notable merely by appearing in a lot of places... J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say Keep on this one. This one has has been on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen proving a little bit of signifigance. I am going to see if I can find some sources. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just curious and please be specific. What are you wanting for an reliable source. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a read of the policy page to see what determines whether a source can be reliable. In this case, I don't think the subject satisfies the primary notability criterion. Yes, the character appeared in the film, but that certainly does not necessarily mean it's notable. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to significant coverage about the notable character in multiple reliable sources. To suggest otherwise is akin to the same kind of anti-academic laziness and ignorance behind the suggestions that President Obama is not really an American and is a Muslim. God forbid deletionists ever comment on topics for which they have actual knowledge or better yet do even cursory research for sources... So many sources can be found it is a mockery of our time to even have to present them here for those who truth be told just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or apparently cannot handle typing a phrase in Google even. Seriously, if you cannot find these readily available sources from Google that you would say to delete here, you are either totally blind, flat out lying, or whatever type of ineptitude that should deny ability to contribute to such discussions as this. Enough playing games trying to pretend like those saying to delete stuff that is clearly notable are acting in good faith or what have you. The bottom line is sources exist. If you truthfully can't find them yourself, God help you then... --192.150.115.150 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go on then, show us some good sources, and, if it's so easy, hack the article down to size and throw the sources in for good measure... J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good sources is WP:RELIABLE I presume things like IGN, Comic Book Resources, Newsarama, Mania.com things like that would have interviews with writers etc which would discuss solo characters and storylines. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^express 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Plenty of sources, except none of them are reliable, and none of them establish the notability of this fictional character. Not notable enough for its own article. All of these transformers articles need to be merged into a list article. SnottyWong ^express 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidacen of real world nnotability.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. Dream Focus invents his own criterion of "notable character" refer to WP:ITSNOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.13.248 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

58.8.13.248 has made no edits other than this one, attacking me specifically, just as other IP addresses keep doing in other AFDs I have been in. Dream Focus 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This page has over 100 links to it, and seemed to be incredible active from the history. Mathewignash (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are hundreds of Transformers pages that need to go. Neither of these facts make up for the fact the character simply isn't notable. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This major character clearly meets the standards for inclusion pursuant to the guidelines for elements within a notable fictional work listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I do not know why all of these Transformers articles have suddenly been targeted for deletion, even if he were only a minor character the proper procedure, pursuant to the guidelines, would be to merge and/or redirect the character to the appropriate article. No need to destroy the articles' history, as the characters may become more significant with future Transformer projects. Inniverse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers)

• Keep as a notable character with sufficient references. Article meets WP:V and WP:N due to plenty of reliable sources and evidence of real world notability.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there are reliable sources, which provide significant coverage, that are independent of the subject, why haven't they been added to the article? PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 1 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.