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 redirect to Transformers. The one "keep" opinion does not address the reason advanced for deletion, i.e., lack of notability (which we define as substantial coverage in reliable sources); in particular, it does not argue that appropriate sources exist.  Sandstein  17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a collection of fictional details and toy listings that fails to establish notability as a whole. The references only serve to reinforce those trivial details. TTN (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No reason advanced for deletion, disruptive intent. The nomination statement boils down to an assertion that topics related to popular fiction/media should not be covered by an encyclopedia, which is simply defiance of policy and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that the article "fails to establish notability as a whole" is clearly a reason advanced for deletion. The rationale certainly does not "[boil] down to an assertion that topics related to popular fiction/media should not be covered by an encyclopedia". Your demand that this be speedy-kept is inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're completely off base. First of all, the comment you quote is just another way of saying "just not notable", not a policy- or guideline-based argument. Second, saying "the article fails to establish" is contrary to a basic principle of deletion policy: the legitimate question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is well written enough. We have a great many articles on notable subjects that don't do an adequate job of stating why the subjects are notable, but WP:BEFORE, incorporated into deletion policy, makes clear that that alone isn't a sufficient basis for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "First of all, the comment you quote is just another way of saying 'just not notable', not a policy- or guideline-based argument". I'm sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. Saying that something isn't notable is a guideline-based argument for deletion- it's a good argument for deletion in some cases, and a very bad one in others. If something isn't notable, what more do you want? You can't prove a negative. "[T]he legitimate question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is well written enough". Agreed, so if you have evidence that the subject is notable, please provide it. If you don't, why are you so keen to see this article kept? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect at best for now, still best connected to that, still questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge, the nominator's rationale is perfectly valid. No evidence of independent notability, thus failing not only WP:GNG but also WP:NOTINHERITED. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:39, 10 May 2016 (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.