Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Transformers


 * 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   no consensus. There seem to be strong arguments in favour of a merge or redirect, but the target for such is either unknown or doesn't exist. Further discussion of this should take place on the talk page, though, not in an AfD. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Transformers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence this product line is notable. WP:DIRcruft and trivia bleeding over from the ridiculousness of the Transformers walled garden. Attempt to assert notability is from a single fan site -- hardly evidence of significant third-party coverage for these products, singly or as a whole. Search for sources yields only manufacturer's site, Transformer fan sites, and Star Wars sites. --EEMIV (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A sinple article for a toy line, detailing it with good references. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom looked for sources myself, even Toyfare coverage is sparse Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually added a reference from Toyfare which voted the Milennium Falcon one of the toy toys of the last 10 years. Mathewignash (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said sparse, very limited coverage not enough to write an ecylopedia artilce. Most of this is referenced to Hasbro Website, we do not need one for toylines that really fail to do anything for than list the toys in the line. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd support merging this with the article on the Star Wars toy line, which is unquestionably notable, but I discovered to my complete and utter shock that we don't have an article on that. We should though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and given the lack of commentary, third-party perspective, etc., this article wouldn't be an appropriate starting point. :-] --EEMIV (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A straight forward, direct, and referenced article. It's a bit obscure. If they make a Star Wars toy article, you can merge it back to that, but there isn't one is there? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (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.