Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado (robot)

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. Dreadstar † 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado (robot)

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.

This one was a good Robot Wars latecomer, but as with the others, reliable third party sources about the robot? I don't think they exist. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This should be merged with other robot wars competitors if it truly not worth of its own page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not like any significant amount of this can be merged. WillOakland (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, UNLESS all the other robots that have articles are deleted/merged, in which case Merge. Otherwise it's not fair. All the robots that have articles are UK champions, which is what Tornado is, and the instant one is removed and the others are kept, it suggests biasey. CBFan (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is encyclopedic information about an important element of a major TV series. I note that all of the other series winning robots also have articles. There may be a case for merging all of these into Robot Wars, but that might make that article too long, in which case this a valid summary style fork. Anyway merging and forking are issues for talk pages, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep roughly equivalent to a major character in a popular TV series in terms of notability. Comparisons could also be made with a sucessful player in televised sport. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It establishes noteability well enough. archanamiya · talk 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an analogy with game shows, where we do keep articles on winners. DGG (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (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.