- 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 Transformers (toy line). This is basically the same discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmetals, and therefore the outcome is the same, with the difference that the one "keep" opinion is now also something of a personal attack. Sandstein 17:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Maximals (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 an overly specific listing of characters based on a single character trait. The primary series in which they appear already has four character lists able to cover them in enough detail, List of Beast Wars characters, List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters, List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters, and List of Beast Wars Neo characters, so this listing is also redundant. TTN (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, speedy close. No good faith reason advanced for deletion. The question of which list these entries should be included on is purely a content decision, and has nothing to do with the deletion process. The nom is simply forum shopping to enforce their contrary-to-policy belief that an encyclopedia should not cover subjects related to popular culture, and is engaging in disruptive performance art. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sort of made it a point not to bother engaging with you, but what is up with this "contrary-to-policy belief that an encyclopedia should not cover subjects related to popular culture" nonsense? You're just making things up for no particular reason. I just don't think a media franchise needs hundreds of Wikia-based fancruft character articles. This franchise will obviously have a dozen or so notable characters, but 90% of it is just junk. And the assertion that this doesn't fall into normal deletion practices is also nonsense seeing as not one AfD you've spammed has been closed for such a reason. TTN (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- HW: Whatever your history with TTN, there do seem to be some good-faith arguments for deletion in the nomination. If you disagree with deleting this article, so be it: please state your case. That said, I don't think a speedy close would be appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, bullshit. Nothing in the nomination statement has any relevance to actual deletion policy. That's quite clear; the statement is explicit that the dispute is simply over which list the entries belong on -- and there's certainly no basis for the implicit argument that items belong on one and only one list. Let's not forget that TTN was topic banned for similar disruptive behavior in a closely related topic area, and that their last round of deletion tagging included such loopy claims as that there wasn't enough critical study of George Orwell to sustain articles on his characters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really still on about the Animal Farm characters? I and several other people in that merge discussion held the opinion that the characters are simply part of the larger discussion that is the topic of "symbolism in Animal Farm" and that individually the characters hold little merit outside of that. I do plan on another merge discussion for that eventually, so I'll leave the irrelevant tangent at that. TTN (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- HW: There's a legitimate question about whether something is an "overly specific listing" (we'd delete "List of chain restaurants which serve steak and kidney pudding") and about whether lists are redundant to others (we might delete/merge/redirect a very specific list if we already have a well-functioning higher-level list). You might disagree with TTN about the extent to which his/her arguments are good ones in this particular case, but to claim that there are no arguments is disingenuous. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 6 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.