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. Keep !votes are either citing procedural considerations alleging that the nominator failed to cite a specific policy in the nom, which is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept, or saying "it's notable". I'd also like to ask everyone to Keep Calm and Carry On. AFD's are not this big a deal. causa sui (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzors[edit]

Fuzors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Apparently non-notable range of Transformers toys - only reference which actually discusses them is a Transformers site. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY CLOSE AND KEEP - The nominator outright lied about the sources, it had three sources, two of which are third party magazines. If he can't be expected to read the article before nominating it, this nomination should be closed. Mathewignash (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF a bit here, eh? The magazine cites don't have quotes from them, and appear to be offline. I agree that the nom statement appears to be inaccurate, but calling it intentional falsehood is a bit ABF when the addition of a single strategically placed word ("online" before reference) would make it accurate. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the word "discusses". Since those other two sources are only sourcing the sentence that the subject exists, I assumed that they were catalogue-type listings. Listing or mentioning a product is not discussing it. If they do actually discuss the subject significantly, it'd be useful if that was expanded upon. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, are you recommending deletion on the supposition that the source doesn't say something? That's a little weak, and very non-AGF. There are sources cited; if you have some reason to believe they are not adequate, do a little research. If we start assuming that every non-online source is suspect, WP is in big trouble. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those type of sources are generally listings. If they aren't, and especially if they're offline, they need to be quoted if actual "discussion" is to be seen. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:16, 9 August 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) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep It's notable and sourced. Maybe it needs more sources, but that alone is not a rationale for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No dog in this fight, but as far as I can tell, the principle the lister is using is not part of WP:DEL#REASON in any perceptible way. Not directly quoting the sources in not a requirement, and could even be an instance of WP:COPYVIO. -Sangrolu (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is easy to find detailed sourcing for this topic such as The Transformers Beast Wars Sourcebook, Dictionary of toys and games in American popular culture and Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia. The nominator is clearly failing to follow our deletion guidelines. All of these Transformers topics have an obvious parent topic to which they could be merged as a reasonable alternative to deletion and so none of them should be brought here. Warden (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is utter nonsense, fan sites and toy product guides are not sufficiently independent of the source or reliable enough to establish notability. There are dozens, perhaps a hundred by now, of these awful transformers articles that have been deleted because of the very poor sourcing that you are trying to prop up here. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The same useless fancruft sourced to the same useless toy guidebooks, fan-created websites, and one-off namedrops in best/worst of list. We don't keep articles because golly-gee there might be legitimate sources out there. Given the overwhelming number of article sin this genre that have been deleted in the last year, it is safe to say that there is nothing out there to justify articles on those minor characters and toy concepts. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again Tarc can't be bothered to keep his facts straight. He claims this article is sourced by "toy guidebooks, fan-created websites, and one-off namedrops", but the sources are as follows - 1. A magazine article which reviewed the fuzor toys, which gave detailed information about the Fuzor. 2. A magazine article covering ideas for Christmas presents that suggested the Fuzor toys, and 3. A web site article that did two paragraphs about Fuzor figures and how strange they are. NOT ONE toy guidebook, NOT ONE fan-created web site, NO one-off name drops. This constant dishonesty is starting to be a pattern for Tarc, who seems to display a bias-based incompetance on the subject. I believe all his opinions on the subject of Transformers should be taken with a gain of salt, at the very least. He cannot be trusted. Mathewignash (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing said there contradicts my statement, this is just the proverbial lipstick and pigs. These toys either receive trivial coverage in real sources, or coverage in unreliable sources. Sooner or later, people just have to come to grips with the fact that the Wikipedia is not a repository for the fictional histories of toys. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Yes, actually it is a repository of information that people find relevant, whether you are ignorant of the topic of not. You really have no idea what an encylopedia is, do you? --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• An encyclopedia is not a vacuum cleaner, sucking in every scrap in existence that it comes across. We make determinations on what passes or guidelines and policy pages and what does not. Tarc (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- The sourcing is inadequate. Two off-line articles that only verify the existence of these toys, and a website of dubious reliability. This is exactly the kind of dodgy sourcing that has seen so many other non-notable Transformers fancruft blurbs rightly deleted. Also strongly protest Mathewignash calling people liars for not sharing his high opinion of these poor sources. Reyk _YO! 03:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your points are pretty invalid. Topless robot has been checked for being reliable before and found to be reliable, and there is no requirement that the text of an article be available online to be a valid source. Mathewignash (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I think they're pretty valid. Did you read the bit about them only seeming to verify the existence of the toys? Reyk _YO! 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to adequate sourcing concerning a notable subject, at least in the viewpoint of all honest editors. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - This editor seems to a banned or blocked user whose opinion probably should be ignored in this debate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are currently no sources provided that discuss the subject, so I doubt the WP:NOTABILITY of this toy line like so many other (now deleted) Tranformers-related articles. The rest seems in violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. A short mention in a list should be sufficient. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate sources. Third party sources need to be able to WP:verify notability, not just verify existence. Per Sgeureka, Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:09, 19 August 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.