488:- Sources do not attest to the individual notability of this character. Being selected as a fan favorite is not a component of notability, even if it's selected several times. None of the sources that are self-published photos of the toy in various configurations (which are somewhere around a dozen or more) attest to its notability. Sources that are obvious fan sites with names like "TFormers.com" and "TFW2005.com" don't attest to the toy's notability. Personal attacks upon the nominator are irrelevant to the nomination and the attacker should redact his comments and apologize.
438:, which I have worked upon. I would like to do more on those but don't have the time and disruptive discussions like this don't help. You may not care for Transformers but it seems to be a billion-dollar franchise with a huge corpus of books, games, toys, movies, &c. It would be most efficient and sensible to leave Transformers experts to work upon that extensive field leaving us free to work upon our preferred topics: Dickens in my case and
400:. Kindly take back your censoring charge, Colonel--it's a bunch of hoohey, and you know as well as I do (well, you probably don't) that individual Transformer bots won't ever be on a level with Jane Austen. You seem to miss, in your usual zeal, that this nomination is for one particular character/toy--I would nominate the gardener in
697:. He gets coverage as a video game character there. Just watch the video. The character is reviewed in comic books he appears in. He makes it on an IGN top ten list. He is a fan favorite, a mainstream newspaper listing him as one of the top Transformers its readers voted should be in the next Transformers movie.
464:
If
Transformers experts believe that fansites constitute reliable sources then it's probably a really good idea not to concede the territory to them. Calling the actions of other editors "disruptive" with no basis in fact is a staggering failure to assume good faith. Pull the log of incivility out of
275:
Excluding X-Entertainment, the other four seem independent, go into some depth and declare this particular autobot as notable. These sources and coverage of the
Grimlock action figures is enough to pass notability for me. The article itself is very complete but relies too much on primary sources and
673:- I don't know why anyone would try to use a quantity over quality argument regarding the sources. The grand majority are irrelevant, and the few that do don't seem to constitute significant coverage. Redirecting and allowing for a selective merge by someone interested is the best option.
653:. The topic's a searchable term, so there's no reason to delete. But the content of this article is not the type that justifies notability (mostly all primary and fan site references, and where using reliable sources, the topic is not discussed in significant coverage). --
609:
Fails GNG. No real coverage in the mainstream press such as the New York Times, MSNBC, academic journals, and the like. This article also has been deleted several times and has been recreated by fanboys. This article is an insult even by modern internet standards.
569:
Sources clearly meet GNG, even if the nom appears to wish that they didn't. 'Significant coverage' is equivalent to 'non-trivial coverage' which is a mere mention of a name in another context, and it's clear that many of these sources meet that definition.
350:, this is not an adequate reason to delete. The nominator seems like those old-school educators who deplored comics on the grounds that they were not proper literature. But Jane Austen and Dickens were considered frivolous amusements in their day too —
690:
A notable character seen throughout many notable toy lines, television series, comic book series, and video games. I'm sure this toy got reviewed somewhere when it first came out, it a robot dinosaur after all. Searching for sources I find this bit at
98:
339:
49 sources this time. The nominator seems to be on a deletion spree motivated largely by antipathy towards to subject matter rather than a genuine attempt to understand and engage with the topic. This seems to be
276:
in its enthusiasm looks to contain some synthesis and possibly OR, too. It could be pared back quite a bit without losing essential information. But this is a matter of editing and a surmountable problem, per
200:
93:
521:
235:. Article consists of an enormous amount of trivial fan information, combining original plot research with catalog entries on the toys derived from this toy. Not notable, not encyclopedic.
506:
88:
83:
153:
551:
194:
267:
are all lists of top
Transformer robots of all time and all list Grimlock in the top ten. The USA today article above contributes a little notability and another
408:
show some good faith by trimming this so it's not so obviously a fan page full of OR and nonsense, with four probably incorrectly used non-free images. But hey.
536:
160:
78:
393:
628:
Are you sure you are thinking of the right article since even looking at the deletion logs shows no evidence that article has ever been deleted?--
695:
629:
611:
426:
I am not especially familiar with either
Transformers or Austen. Dickens is more to my taste and, for his work, we have pages such as
650:
346:
17:
258:
737:
720:
682:
665:
637:
619:
597:
579:
558:
543:
528:
513:
497:
474:
455:
427:
417:
384:
367:
325:
307:
289:
244:
61:
126:
121:
397:
215:
439:
316:
I was uncertain before, but looking more closely, I agree that X-Entertainment isn't reliable. Striking it, thanks. --
130:
182:
303:
254:
756:
113:
40:
268:
232:
633:
451:
363:
588:
Which sources would those be, the 25% of them that link to tfw2005.com or the fan pictures from conventions?
615:
733:
277:
176:
752:
593:
555:
540:
525:
510:
493:
470:
341:
321:
299:
285:
57:
36:
172:
447:
443:
359:
208:
575:
222:
729:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
751:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
442:
in yours. Attacking rival tastes and topics instead seems both uncivil and unproductive per
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
698:
589:
489:
466:
431:
413:
355:
317:
281:
240:
53:
661:
231:
Here's the most notable thing: 16% of fans want to see this toy in a sequel, according to
188:
678:
571:
380:
117:
280:. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --
263:
147:
409:
236:
654:
435:
674:
376:
109:
67:
99:
Articles for deletion/Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)
692:
298:
The IGN hits looks good, but is X-Entertainment a reliable source?
745:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
465:
your own eye before accusing others of having a mote in theirs.
253:
Just looking at the previous AfD and the first five refs,
522:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
507:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
143:
139:
135:
94:
Articles for deletion/Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons)
207:
396:is a source. I think I counted nine "sources" from
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
759:). No further edits should be made to this page.
552:list of Video games-related deletion discussions
89:Articles for deletion/Grimlock (3rd nomination)
84:Articles for deletion/Grimlock (2nd nomination)
221:
8:
550:Note: This debate has been included in the
535:Note: This debate has been included in the
520:Note: This debate has been included in the
505:Note: This debate has been included in the
52:. No prejudice towards a merge discussion.
549:
534:
519:
504:
537:list of Film-related deletion discussions
352:plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
273:I don't know about X-entertainment, but
76:
7:
392:. Colonel et al, please explain how
74:
24:
651:Lists of Transformers characters
347:de gustibus non est disputandum
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
649:to the appropriate sublist of
354:. It remains our policy that
79:Articles for deletion/Grimlock
1:
683:17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
666:16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
638:00:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
620:21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
598:03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
580:16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
559:15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
544:15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
529:15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
514:15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
498:19:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
475:01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
456:10:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
428:List of Dickensian characters
418:19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
385:16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
368:13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
326:21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
308:17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
290:04:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
245:01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
738:16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
721:09:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
271:is a spotlight on Grimlock.
62:00:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
776:
404:for the same reason. You
356:Knowledge is not censored
748:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
73:AfDs for this article:
344:writ large but, per
402:Pride and Prejudice
48:The result was
561:
546:
531:
516:
767:
750:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
658:
556:Northamerica1000
541:Northamerica1000
526:Northamerica1000
511:Northamerica1000
300:NinjaRobotPirate
226:
225:
211:
163:
151:
133:
34:
775:
774:
770:
769:
768:
766:
765:
764:
763:
757:deletion review
746:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
656:
432:Dickens' London
278:WP:SURMOUNTABLE
264:X-entertainment
168:
159:
124:
108:
105:
103:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
773:
771:
762:
761:
741:
740:
723:
685:
668:
643:
642:
641:
640:
630:174.93.163.194
623:
622:
603:
602:
601:
600:
583:
582:
563:
562:
547:
532:
517:
501:
500:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
459:
458:
421:
420:
387:
370:
342:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
311:
310:
293:
292:
229:
228:
165:
104:
102:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
772:
760:
758:
754:
749:
743:
742:
739:
735:
731:
728:per above. --
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
696:
694:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
672:
669:
667:
663:
659:
652:
648:
645:
644:
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
613:
612:97.72.232.122
608:
605:
604:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
568:
565:
564:
560:
557:
553:
548:
545:
542:
538:
533:
530:
527:
523:
518:
515:
512:
508:
503:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
476:
472:
468:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
343:
338:
335:
334:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
224:
220:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
170:Find sources:
166:
162:
158:
155:
149:
145:
141:
137:
132:
128:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
106:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
747:
744:
730:Crazy runner
725:
699:
687:
670:
646:
606:
566:
485:
444:WP:LIGHTBULB
405:
401:
398:this website
389:
372:
351:
345:
336:
272:
262:
250:
230:
218:
212:
204:
197:
191:
185:
179:
169:
156:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
590:Jerry Pepsi
490:Jerry Pepsi
467:Jerry Pepsi
375:per above.
337:Speedy Keep
318:Mark viking
282:Mark viking
195:free images
54:Mark Arsten
436:Sarah Gamp
394:this video
269:IGN review
753:talk page
233:USA Today
37:talk page
755:or in a
671:Redirect
572:Jclemens
259:IGN, too
154:View log
110:Grimlock
68:Grimlock
39:or in a
607:Delete.
390:Comment
201:WP refs
189:scholar
127:protect
122:history
693:Kotaku
486:Delete
448:Warden
410:Drmies
360:Warden
261:, and
237:Drmies
173:Google
131:delete
716:Focus
647:Merge
440:bacon
406:could
216:JSTOR
177:books
161:Stats
148:views
140:watch
136:links
16:<
734:talk
726:Keep
688:Keep
679:talk
657:ASEM
634:talk
616:talk
594:talk
576:talk
567:Keep
494:talk
471:talk
452:talk
434:and
414:talk
381:talk
373:Keep
364:talk
322:talk
304:talk
286:talk
251:Keep
241:talk
209:FENS
183:news
144:logs
118:talk
114:edit
58:talk
675:TTN
377:BOZ
255:IGN
223:TWL
152:– (
736:)
681:)
664:)
636:)
618:)
596:)
578:)
554:.
539:.
524:.
509:.
496:)
473:)
454:)
446:.
430:,
416:)
383:)
366:)
358:.
324:)
306:)
288:)
257:,
243:)
203:)
146:|
142:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
60:)
732:(
713:m
710:a
707:e
704:r
701:D
677:(
662:t
660:(
655:M
632:(
614:(
592:(
574:(
492:(
469:(
450:(
412:(
379:(
362:(
320:(
302:(
284:(
239:(
227:)
219:·
213:·
205:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
180:·
175:(
167:(
164:)
157:·
150:)
112:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.