Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Masters

Action Masters

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

Non-notable "subline" of the Transformers toy series. No reliable secondary sources have covered the subject, leading to difficulties with verification. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Mathewignash (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as a sockpuppet nomination by Claritas (talk · contribs). No prejudices against renomination after a week to give time for the other butt-load of Transformers AfDs to worth themselves through, which may give guidance on what to do with this article. —Farix (t | c) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - I added a citation to a third party book that covers the Action Masters in detail and should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that I added some references, I vote keep. Mathewignash (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:FICT, WP:GNG. One primary source. I see no reason to delay the inevitable and run through this same AfD a week from now. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize this is at least in part about a non-fictional topic (a toy line) right? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- In-universe plot summary, vaguely pointed at by a single primary source. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize this is at least in part about a non-fictional topic (a toy line) right? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can accept the arguments about the deletion of some individual Transformers, this is an entire sub-line, and one of the biggest sub-lines in the entire G1 series, and it revolutionised the entire concept of the toys when it first came out. I've noticed that some of the arguments effectively ignore the toys and focus solely on the characters' appearances in the fiction. I can accept that for individual characters, but not for entire sub-lines of the toyline, at least in such cases as this one, where the toys changed so radically. JIP | Talk 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources seem to be available, and it fails GNG. Appears to be completely non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect to Transformers (toy line), one of many sub-lines of the main toys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1] is detailed and appears to be a RS. [2] briefly discusses the line. I have to say that there was almost certainly decent coverage "back in the day" for these... Hobit (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can these sources be added into the article? JIP | Talk 12:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes mastercollector.com - which would appear to be a Self-Published Source a Reliable Source to indicate independent notability of this line? Skinny87 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks like a RS to me. Certainly massive detail. It may also be a SPS, I can't tell. The 3 or 4 reviews I read were by the same person, but I couldn't tell if the site was run by that same person. Either way I'm having a hard time believing the site isn't reliable for the subject matter it covers. You can take it to the RS notice board if you wish. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JIP: I'm certain it can be. But the question here is if the topic meets WP:N, not the article. Hopefully someone will add them in a way that makes sense (I know nothing about the topic myself, you might be a better person for this?) Hobit (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting an article on one of the biggest Generation 1 sublines? Lame, Wikipedia. --Divebomb (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be different enough from the 'regular' Transformers line to keep a separate article. VikÞor | Talk 00:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 4 reasons: first, there is no consensus to delete any of these articles, and merging--which is something that might well make sense--is impractical to discuss here article by article, but perhaps we will be able to reach a general agreement after remove the sockpuppets. Second, the arguments for deletion are most of them based on the assumption this is fiction, not a toy. Third, there are reasonably good sources. And the best reason, is that this AfD was started by a sockpuppet, and should have been summarily closed as soon as that was discovered. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references improve. Only one ref is anywhere near being third party, most of the information is unsourced. Hairhorn (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Hairhorn. Drewbug (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]