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. I judged by the strength of the arguments, not the number tally - Colonel Warden gave evidence of multiple reliable secondary sources; while some seem to be expired, the Wired News, Los Angeles Times, and the Spanish Source (though I'm unsure about the latter, however it's not important since the first two are enough) are more than enough. This article does need a serious cleanup, however. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matoran[edit]

This articles asserts no notability through reliable sources, has every tag imaginable on it because of this, and has no capacity to improve since there are no reliable sources to add to it. Therefore, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion that reliable sources do not exist for this topic seems to be false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as someone not familiar with the topic, I can see zero claim of notability. In fact I can't even figure out what the article is attempting to talk about. Also zero independent sources --T-rex 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, one non-reliable reference to a Bioncle wiki, and far, far too much in-universe detail. --Thetrick (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe plot summary with no real-world context. Nothing to indicate notability. Doubtful that this topic specifically has ever received substantial coverage from independent sources. Sources provided in Warden's link do not appear to be about the people themselves, but more about merchandise and the franchise itself. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CW. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google news search would indicate that sources do exist to improve the article -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, no proper sources for out-of-universe context, no demonstration of encyclopedic value. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the information isn't original research (which is predominantly seems to be) or that it adheres to WP:NPOV. There seems to be only one viable source applicable to the subject from those which were pointed out above, which is used already in the main article where coverage is slightly better. The subject fails WP:NOTE by not containing multiple secondary sources, and as such is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:39, 19 June 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.