Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcee

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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arcee

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another Transformer character is lacking any WP:SIGCOV. Almost entire article was full of OR and unsourced statements (crufts). WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial sources. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is mostly primary sources, nothing indicates it meeting notability requirements. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an absolute mess and there's no obvious place to merge. However, Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic contains a page about Arcee from 219-220 discussing sexist portrayals. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could actually find sources to back up an article. I still think it passes the WP:TNT threshold where it's totally useless. If notable, it should be totally rewritten from scratch to sound less like a FANDOM article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. As a mater of fact Arcee is probably the most well known female Transformer. There is a lot of sources that can be used to expand the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Wikipedia's recent deletionism and hostility towards character articles instead of actually improving bad articles is a terrible trend.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly trivial mentions and a whole bunch of CBR stuff, which is a content farm created solely for SEO optimization. This WP:REFBOMB does not convince me of notability. If she was actually notable, only a few good sources would suffice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated on the website's page, CBR has won various awards. Also, what kind of sources exactly are required to prove notability? This is a character who has existed for decades and received coverage by a variety of sources. Some mention her extensively, others only briefly. If you take them all together, even the trivial mentions can be useful in building the article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Arcee was the first female Transformers to be created, and the first to appear in a major capacity; as well as often being the only female Transformer around. That alone displays some degree of notability, and there are various sources discussing the character; whether it's development or response. While the article definitely needs work, as StarTrekker showed, there are various sources about the character; whether it's about the G1 cartoon, Prime, the upcoming movie, or IDW comics. And in the case of the latter, there's also various sources relating to that and her status as a transgender woman, and overall representation of female Transformers. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. [28] [29] [30] Just looking through scholarly sources, multiple sources discuss Arcee to a significant degree, and under different lenses. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single person's senior paper is not an immediate indicator of notability. Scholarly sources have to be cited by others to prove their impact. Don't confuse self published works with published peer-reviewed journals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is a lot of sources that are still available. CastJared (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the totality of the coverage in CBR is significant and usable, and additional coverage in books and scholarly works puts this over the line for GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rosguill, there is quite a broad level of coverage per BASIC, including academic papers. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2023 (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.