Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinobot

Dinobot

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

This character subset does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see a number of reliable sources on this article, and I imagine there are even more out there. At worst, merge to List of Autobots rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to point them out, because I'm not seeing anything. Do note that I'm talking about reliable sources that actually mention the topic in detail rather than a reliable source that mentions the topic in passing mention. Source number 2 talking about the top selling toys of that year is about the franchise in general and only mentions that Dinobots in relation to that designation, so it doesn't particularly belong in the article at all. That seems to be the case with the other sources listed. TTN (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listed below a source that contains more than a passing mention, and shows that it's a noted aspect of the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. It's a prominent element within the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument. Being prominent is not recognized as a means of notability without sources to prove it. TTN (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dinobots have been discussed in sources. Like here in the book Masters of FX: Behind the Scenes with Geniuses of Visual and Special Effects. It notes they're "beloved from the animated series". I'm sure other sources could be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly much better than sources some other people bring up, that is much more in-line with the movie article than this article. It's not something that should be entirely excluded, but nothing you could hinge an article on. Though if you have more sources, please provide them. If something is actually notable, I'm open to withdrawal. TTN (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is about the films, but nevertheless it shows that the dinobots are a well-remembered and popular aspect of the Transformers universe. There is another source here calling the Dinobots "the greatest of all Transformers concepts", and again, it isn't talking only about the films. See here, here and here for sources testifying to their popularity as toys. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just talking with my 4-year's boy and the article helped me to be competent! --Perohanych (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully I can't see how that proves notability. "I like it" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Longevitydude (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage several sources have been provided that should show notability; there was already a source for the dinobots being popular as toys in the article when it was nominated for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. C'mon, TTN, you should have developed a sense by now of what the community will support merging, and what we will not. Merging NN content into a list? Fine. Then nominating that list for deletion as well? Not cool. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to announce a change from my vote to Keep. It seems Dinobots has garnered much attention and is very important to a lot of people. Longevitydude (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]