Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gobots (Transformers)

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 merge to Gobots. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobots (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Toy which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This toy is independent of the later toy line, which has received somewhat more coverage. Claritas § 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I suggested that this article merge with the Gobots page. Why does no one listen? Mathewignash (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really a sensible idea, because this toy has little to do with the later series of the same name. Which Gobots page, anyway ? Claritas § 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be a simple sentence in the page for Gobots, which also needs work, but at least it's notable. Mathewignash (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are they related, apart from sharing the same name ? They were manufactured under different companies. Claritas § 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason they share a name is because Hasbro bought the Gobots from Tonka in 1991. Mathewignash (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - More on how they're related. NotARealWord (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No one listens" because you used sockpuppets/meatpuppets on the last round of AFDs and your credibility is now less than zero. You're actually right about this one though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Perhaps personal attacks are not the best thing for a deletion debate?
      • Uhh, you're aware that you admitted to it (in this diff), right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I discovered what I did was against the rules, so I admitted to keep it from causing a problem. I'm talking about your note that my "credibility is less than zero" comment. Inappropriate and personal - as well as lacking logic. If it were true I should vote to delete all these articles now, so my negative influence would make people vote to keep the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a sentence into the main Gobots article. It's pretty unusual for a brand to take over its main competitor and assimilate rather than bury it. But the character doesn't need a seperate article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Andrew Lenahan. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarize and merge: really just a WP:FORK of other gobots material. Only need a mention that the franchise was bought out and then you're done. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It should say more than that. It was bought by Hasbro and they used it to make several lines of toys called "Gobots" over the years. One of these lines even had a short run TV show. Mathewignash (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2010 (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.