Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple Changer


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Quadruple Changer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be non-notable, cannot find much on google that supports this article. magnius (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, toys aren't always notable, and no evidence to show that this one is. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - there are a number of sources to validate this as a concept. However, it certainly doesn't merit its own page but it seems sensible to merge it somewhere so that readers who are interested can find what it is about. There are so many Transformers pages that I'll leave it to those more expert than I to determine the best target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep These toys are notable, as being a type of robot in the popular series, which can do what none others can, changing into four forms! And Scorponok is very notable, having been featured in many series over the years.  While the number of robots they manage to make which could change into four forms is rare, that something difficult to accomplish, at least one they did manage to do this with, became insanely successful.   D r e a m Focus  20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. I also found no decent sources to prove otherwise. This Transformers fancruft is much better suited for a Transformers Wiki and not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely unnotable toy. Appears to be more a fan-made term for a certain style of toy rather than any actual official term. No reliable sources even mention the term at all, only fansites. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.