Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Universe


 * 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. The one "keep" opinion does not rebut the principal argument for deletion, which is that the article does not provide sources sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Transformers: Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a list of toys without any sources to establish this particular branch of the toy line as notable. TTN (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. These are just toys; neither WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT is fulfilled. All sources I could find were either promotional, first-party, or too specific (e.g. Transformers fan sites) to establish notability. If anything, find an appropriate article to merge this one into. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 01:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete or Merge. There are several other articles related purely to Transformers toy lines or lists of characters; if the sources aren't suitable then why not seek out ones that are rather than just axing the whole thing?OptimusMagnus (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @: I've tried locating sources, but I've been unable to locate any which qualify under WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. If you know of any sources which meet these guidelines, feel free to add them to the article; until then, we have no suitable evidence of notability, and so the article is likely to be deleted. As for those other articles, their existence is irrelevant to this discussion under WP:INHERIT; just because another line of toys is notable doesn't mean this one is. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This should be judged as an article about a line of toys, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that the line is notable (though I admit that the generic name makes searching for sources fairly tricky). I'm open to being proven wrong, and will happily change my mind if reliable, third party sources are provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2016 (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.