Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generator Rex (Toy Line)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Generator Rex (Toy Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable independent sources to establish the notability of this series of toys. The page creator themselves admit: "info is very scant as they quietly canceled series, &never sold/marketed well to begin, so there's little to nothing to source." Exactly. As a result, given the complete lack of sources to support a stand alone article, this fails WP:GNG and deserves, at best, a one line mention in the Generator Rex article. Valenciano (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already appropriately summarised in the Generator Rex article, no reliable sources exist for this level of detail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Andrew Lenahan - no sourcing, and adequately covered in main article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2013 (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.