Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 9 September 2009 (Replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Drag Strip

Drag Strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This character does not assert independent notability. TTN (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect, either to Dragstrip or List of Decepticons. Powers 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• No evidence or assertion of non-notability as the term is at least worthy of an article in the racing sense as confirmed by Google News and Google books. The character is also a toy from a notable show that you even look at pictures of online, i.e. no reason why we would redlink, maybe merge and redirect, maybe improve, but not redlink. Best, --A Nobody 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The term you get results for is drag strip (or dragstrip), not capitalized Drag Strip. The sources you find in Google News and Google Books are not about the Transformers. I have no idea what you mean with "assertion of non-notability", of course the article will not say that the subject is not notable, but that is so utterly not the point of the JNN essay that I feel to see why you bring it up here.
    • I believe A Nobody's point is that deleting the page (producing a redlink) is unnecessary since a redirect will be needed. Powers 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Keeping the history when it has nothing to do with the actual redirect is pointless. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to dragstrip. The current subject of the article is not notable, but the title of the article is a plausible search term for unrelated content. Fram (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The current subject is notable by any reasonable definition of the term: a toy from a major franchise that includes cartoons, etc. as verifiable online. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No. There are many toy franchises for popular games, movies, comics, ... This is a good indication for the notability of the franchise, but not for the individual elements that become a toy. The Snorks are notable, an individual Snork isn't. The Smurfs are notable. The farmhouse isn't, the village well isn't, Puppy isn't. The definition of "notable" as presented in WP:N is a reasonable definition. It is not the only possible one, but to claim that it is not a reasonable definition is incorrect. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to dragstrip, Fram's thoughts on the matter are the same as my own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no pressing need to delete content first that is not libelous or a copy vio. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no pressing need to maintain content which is not used and will not be used because it is not the content we want in an encyclopedia. Content which is not libelous or copyvio is deleted constantly, this would be no exception. Bios of 14 year old schoolkids, myspace bands, insignificant companies, ... don't even get a seven day discussion. You have to argue why the content has to be kept, not that it isn't a copyvio or libel. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates