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 merge to List of Beast Wars characters. or any other place that is more appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a minor Transformer character that doesn't assert any sort of notability. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a stub, but it has references, fictional appearances, etc. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has no reason not to exist either... After all, it is a real thing that we can see actual photographs of and is from a major franchise and according to our articles, which does have a few references, Scarem figured into a toy, animated series, and publication, i.e. has multiple mentions across various media. Now per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, I see no reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect this non-hoax that is obviously relevant to some segment of our community (at least five editors have contributed to the article) and/or to merge/transwiki with wikia:transformers:Scarem and maybe even this? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as with other minor characters. It's not sensible to keep as a separate article, nor to remove all reference--it would be at least a redirect to a list. Unless the nom. can show why a redirect is inappropriate, the discussion does not belong here. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems to make the most sense. If I were looking for info on this character, I'd actually welcome being redirected to an article that listed all of the secondary characters rather than have to keep clicking around to find each of them individually. TruthGal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge in the interests of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 August 2009 (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.