From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 List of Autobots. Go forth and Be bold! Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Topspin (Transformers) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. The reception link, even if it was active, looks like it's probably just trivial fluff. TTN ( talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Actually the List of Autobots is a horrible choice for merging, and should be the last choice. There are CLEARLY pages with more detailed informaiton on Topspin on wikipedia that that one, which is merely a list of names. Please see the several suggestions I made above. Mathewignash ( talk) 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above. I'm not convinced that we need a disambiguation page. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There already is a disambig page, here: Topspin_(disambiguation), we just add an extra line to that. I would say simply redirect Topspin (Transformers) to that disambig page, then on that page you provide links to the three pages I listed above which contain information on the three different Topspin characters. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect instead as we've established as it is that all of these characters are not specifically notable for their own article, and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better for an encyclopedia, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:20, 17 November 2016 (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.