Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers (2010 toy line)


 * 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. As many of the keep !votes are not backed in policy, the reslt is delete, for reasons including that we are not a directory, and the notability of the line itself. Courcelles 02:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Transformers (2010 toy line)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article does not establish notability for this product line. Sources are mainly pages at TFW2005, at least one of which appears to be about a then-uncomfirmed toy, likely stolen from a factory. Which is why it was sold for auction before they could properly identify what it was called. This is the kind of source TFWiki would avoid, since the information was from a non-reliable, not to mention (likely) criminal source. NotARealWord (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's s simple list article, with a variety of sources. Mathewignash (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-Isn't this kind of list in violation of What Wikipedia is not? It seems to be an indiscriminate list of products, which would look better at a Transformers fansite or a shopping guide. About the sources, it's a big fansite. Plus there's that bit about the stolen toy. NotARealWord (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If you decide to delete this article, why don't you simply delete each and every toy list article here on Wiki (and I'm not just talking about Transformers)? Maybe one of these days, someone will start an article titled "The Wikipedia Transformers article holocaust", which tells of the mass-deletion of dozens of Transformers-related articles.


 * What I don't get is why only Transformers articles are being singled out in this whole AfD fiasco. If you go to the Robotech articles, you will see that they're much worse in terms of management, references and notability - Areaseven (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, I'm waiting for an answer. Is anybody home? Bueller? Bueller? - Areaseven (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions, Areaseven:


 * 1) Commenting that "Other stuff exists", might not win an argument.
 * 2) Unless the "TF-article holocaust" gets significant outside coverage, it's not gonna be an article. Wikipedia stuff can't get articles unless they have notability outside Wikipedia. See Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush. But I do have a list of TF-related AfDs from August 28-ish to September 8-ish here. List may be incomplete.
 * 3) I don't know much about Robotech, so I don't really deal with articles regarding that... yet.
 * 4) There are people who will notice this. Be patient. -NotARealWord (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of complaining about the removal of TF articles, you should be complaining about the non-removal of Robotech, He-Man, etc articles. Are ALL the many and varied articles from other fictional universes actually about REAL-WORLD NOTABLE things from those universes or are they articles that would be better served on dedicated sites. I think Wikipedia is a very poor place to keep these things, dedicated sites (like Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, and tfwiki) would serve the purpose much better. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I want to keep this article, really I do, but tw2005 is the only source - and that doesn't cut it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see why WP can't have an article about a WP article, if the NYT has an article about the article. Having said that I think that we really don't need lists of toys, just an article explaining about the toys: Why they are important, etc. Borock (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Also, some stuff currently redirects to the article "Transformers (2010 toy line), those should be deleted too if this article is. NotARealWord (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - see my response in the discussion with Areaseven above for rationale. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to a new sub-section of Transformers (toy line). Honestly, this is just too much minutiae and detail for a topic that doesn't see coverage in reliable sources, it is all from the same, tired fansite.  Summarize this entire thing in a paragraph or two and put it in the main toy line article. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The redirects are as follows:
 * Transformers: Hunt for the Decepticons
 * Dust Storm (Transformers)
 * Tail Whip (Transformers)
 * Backfire (Transformers)
 * Breacher (Transformers) (which was an article that I nominated for deletion)
 * Crankstart
 * Firetrap (Transformers)
 * Oil Pan (Transformers)
 * Sunspot (Transformers)


 * These redirects would be meaningless when this article gets deleted. Since these characters have never appeared outside this specific toy line, the redirects should get deleted. Although, the first one could redirect to the page on TF toy lines in general. NotARealWord (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects that point to targets that are deleted are eligible for Speedy Deletion (Criteria G8, as I recall). A bot would tag them thus, and an admin with time to kill would delete them. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete do not merge. Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue, and the entire thing is exclusively sourced to a fansite. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the stuff currently redirecting to the article discussed? NotARealWord (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think much about the redirects with "(Transformers)" after them, as I don't magine many people will ever type that into the search box, but that said it someone wants to retarget them to the list of Autobots or whatever then they can go right ahead. Redirects are cheap, after all. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, they might still need to exist for Disambig pages and other articles. For instance If someone wanted to look up character from a TV series, and their name was a commonly used word, like Wheelie, who was recently deleted, I'd want links to it from other article to continue to forward to the 2009 Transformers movie character page, not just be dead links to be removed. Mathewignash (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, the names "Breacher", "oil Pan", etc. have never been used before in TF, and if they ever are again, it would likely be for entirely unrelated characters, possibly of different faction than he original. Plus, redirecting o a TF movieverse-related list wouldn't be appropriate, considering that we're not quite sure if these guys live in a movie-related universe. So yeah, redirecting anywhere after this article gets deleted isn't a good idea, or it won't be after Hasbro reuses those names for entirely different characters. NotARealWord (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No independent, reliable sources to grant independent notability. Thus fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- this is weakest of all transformers weak notability and poor "sources". Dwanyewest (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubify -- The list of actual products should be axed per WP:RS and WP:NOTINFO. I would not be surprised, however, if various toy-focused news outlets discuss and comment about the pending release of the figures/reaction to them. I'd be fine retaining the lede and expanding with critical commentary. Might also be appropriate to merge the lede, esp. reference to joint release with book series, to an overarching Transformers toy article, if one exists. I note the ARS tag, and think this might be a rescue-able article if there's third-party material [I don't know the Transformers press coverage world to know] -- if their efforts come up blank, however, with no significant third-party sources by the time the AfD winds down, the entire article should be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The toys of such a notable series are notable. Year by year for organizing them is fine, there enough information to fill up the individual articles.  Anyone wishing to study toys or whatnot would find this very encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it's notable, there should be sources besides fansites. Plus, there's that stolen toy bit I mentioned above. NotARealWord (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another WP:ITSNOTABLE to discount. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   express 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment the sources are WP:FANSITES and are therefore unreliable. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:FANSITES is a section of hte External links guideline, not the references guideline. NotARealWord (talk) 11:43, 30 September 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.