Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Masterpiece

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 keep. Jujutacular ^talk 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Masterpiece

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

An article with poor "sources" to support its questionable notbility. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article doesn't mention it, but ToyFare magazine called Msterpiece Optimus Prime the best toy ever. (The llink seems dead, though.) However, I don't know if that actually counts for anything much. NotARealWord (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume then that you will be removing the Transformers: Alternators article, Transformers: Alternity, Transformers: Universe and so on, because it has the exact same notability as all of those. If it's insufficiently sourced, then LABEL IT SO. Do NOT misuse deletion if you do not understand what it means. BTW, ToyFare's Best Toy Ever is mentioned.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 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) 02:46, 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 - Even though not sourced, this is not a reason to delete, with a search through the internet I could find enough notability for these toy line. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been long established that sources such as these [1] aren't independent or reliable and in all this time nobody has produced reliable or independent sources to prove otherwise to support this continuation of keeping this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the topic of this article (note the name, take it literally) I'm leanin' more towards keep since I'm guessing that it's just a victim of bad writing/editing. However, I'm afraid that it'll just stay bad if it's kept. NotARealWord (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eduemoni. Referenced non-trivially in magazines. Stickee (talk) 10:21, 3 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.