Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaihawk

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. Courcelles 13:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaihawk

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have significant third-party sources to assert notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shadow (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no third-party sources for this minor fictional character, fails WP:N. Also, can an admit please, please group all these mass noms into one? The rationale and most people's response is one or none, if there are a few with outstanding features then list those but we can safely group most. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm always wary of doing that, because most of these articles are so badly written that there is always the chance that one of the characters could be notable, which tends then to derail bundled AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Victory_characters#Breast_Force per WP:BEFORE#5, as that's the character page for the anime series Gaihawk is a character on, and he's listed there. Mathewignash (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another poorly written, poorly sourced article of questionable note worthiness. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2011 (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.