Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Robot Powered Machines

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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robot Powered Machines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article with no sources to support its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The user who started this discussion clearly doesn't understand what factors are important for an AfD, and also which criteria should be followed, which polices and guidelines should be mentioned and which one shouldn't. With an edition this article could be well sourced, well written and could meet several policies required even for a good article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a personal attack, also not a non-courtesy comment, I noticed how he nominated some articles, and to address these details to this discussion would be relevant to its conclusion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article contains no sources and consists of nothing but trivia. Notability requirements are not met. I notice someone has suggested a merge but this is not appropriate because a) there is no usable content to salvage, and b) the obvious merge target is already full of pointless junk and would not benefit from having more. The Keep vote above is invalid because it focuses on the character of the nominator and not the substance of his argument, which in this case is 100% correct. Reyk _YO! 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eduemoni. Not really any valid reason for deletion. Stickee (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "There are no sources to be found" not a valid reason for deletion? Reyk _YO! 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case, the lack of sources is of more concern than usual. I note that the article's creator was blocked indefinitely for disruptive edits and vandalism [1], which makes me question the statements made in this article. The alternative is to assume that the author has all of these in a toy box and wrote the page from the backs of the packages. It's had the unreferenced tag on it for more than a year; and I don't see that anyone here, myself included, wants to fix that. Like ReykYO, I think that WP:V is a pretty valid reason for deletion. Mandsford 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a bot that creates endless trival transformer articles? There are no refs. Szzuk (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (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.