Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe)

Add links
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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (G.I. Joe)

[edit]
Mainframe (G.I. Joe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable GIJoe character action figure. Ridernyc (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unless we're planning to merge all minor GI Joe characters to a single page, I fail to see why this is being nominated. Why not tag other characters as well? (Note, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is a comparison between two kinds of apples, not apples and oranges.) What do Dial Tone, Leatherneck, Wet Suit, and Claymore have that Mainframe doesn't? And for full disclosure, I'm not a GI Joe fan. -WarthogDemon 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree fully with the above. Is there something that makes this one particular individual GI Joe character non-notable but not the hundreds of others Wikipedia also has articles about? And I'm not a GI Joe fan either. JIP | Talk 06:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I could care less if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless, of course, that stuff happens to be sources which provide non-trivial coverage of this subject. Where are they? JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone needs to move on from the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If it makes you feel better I can nominate them all now, Seriously don't acknowledge WP:OTHERSTUFF then make otherstuff arguments. Trust me based on what happens here they all might go under the hammer. I recommend moving on to showing how these characters are notable and have anything besides trivial coverage that requires their own articles. Hell this article basically out right says this is a minor character that did nothing. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I thought I was making it clear that I wasn't using the otherstuffexists argument. The very first sentence I said was "Keep - unless we're planning to merge all minor GI Joe characters to a single palge". -WarthogDemon 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a G.I. Joe fan and I do not feel like I can offer an objective opinion, but here is my take, from a pure notability angle. Let's look at WP:N. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If we are restricting ourselves to independent coverage, meaning the Marvel comics don't count, there are three main sources of information for G.I. Joe characters that I am aware of: Yojoe.com, which has information on the toys themselves and scans of the file cards, Myuselessknowledge.com, which has information on the characters as they are in the comic books, Mark W. Bellomo's book Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994. This book is not available online, and is not currently used in any G.I. Joe articles, but I have read it in print and it is a directory of G.I. Joes that has an image of each figure along with a brief biography summarizing personality traits, out-of-universe background material, and sometimes a sentence or two on the comic book version. Basically, just the sort of information we want.

Now, the two websites count as providing significant independent coverage, but they do not, in my opinion, meet WP:RS. I support their use as sources in the articles because I have personally always found them to be accurate and reliable, but they have little value in an AFD debate.

The third source, the book, meets all three criteria (significant coverage, independent, reliable), but WP:N also states that "Multiple sources are generally expected," so we're not out of the woods yet. It comes down to community consensus: if an article has one source that meets RS and two that do not, do we keep it or don't we? I myself am not sure. Of course, none of the articles under discussion here use this book as a source; I myself no longer have access to it, but if someone who does could add references to these articles, that would go a long way towards establishing notability.

However, we may be able to avoid the issue altogether, because those three sources are not the only sources out there.

James DeSimone has authored several guides to G.I. Joe figures that bear looking at, and Tomart Publications has also put a few: Tomarts Encyclopedia & Price Guide to Action Figure Collectibles, Vol. 1: A-Team Thru G.I.Joe and Tomart's Price Guide to G.I. Joe Collectibles. There is also the Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, but I understand that it deals mostly with 12-inch Joes. I do not have access to any of these, so maybe someone who does could tell use if they have any use here?

A more character-oriented work, as opposed to toy-oriented, is Pablo Hidalgo's G.I. Joe Vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide. Again, I haven't read it, and I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at least it should help us with the most well-known characters.

If anyone knows of any other sources, please post them.

I've put a lot of work into these articles, so naturally I hope they get kept. However, I realize that that may not happen. Perhaps the most likely outcome is a compromise, something like what happened with the Pokemon articles: keep the most significant, like Jigglypuff and Pikachu, or Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, Duke and the other big-shots in the case of G.I. Joe, and merge the others into a list. If we go that route, it should be more than what currently exists at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. It should be something more like what exists at List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character.

(Reposted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe)) Cerebellum (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think listings a price guide counts as significant coverage. I have no argument against merging other then the fact that recently people agree to merge and it never happens. I'm finding AFD's that ended in a consensus to merge a 6 months to a year ago and nothing has been done.Ridernyc (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might take a while to merge 209 articles and to hammer out which ones actually deserve their own articles, but I can guarantee that if the result of this debate is merge, I will get started on merging immediately. Cerebellum (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a tentative benchmark that would probably get rid of 50% of the articles in Category:G.I. Joe characters: I a character has appeared in more than one incarnation of G.I. Joe it gets its own article. (Note: This doesn't mean figure + comic = 2, it means figure + comic + cartoon = 2.) The reason for this is that if we simply merge everything in sight, a lot of information will be lost, since many of these characters have appeared in several different incarnations. I'm not saying that this is perfect, but it is a start at least, and once the non-controversial chaff is weeded out then we can start discussing the leftovers individually, on their own merits, rather than mass-deleting. Cerebellum (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character has appeared in numerous comic book series, toy lines, and cartoon series. He was a major character also, quite well developed. Dream Focus 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge adequately. The one sentence per character list is not enough & at the present state of things there is no way to ensure adequate coverage except to keep. It shouldnt be necessary, for good combination articles would do, but they are continually whittled down, & some apparently don;t accept them in principal as a way of handling relative minor material unless they are notable enough for an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major character in a major series, with plenty of "other media" appearances. Also, it shouldn't need to be said to anyone experienced with the AFD process, but the "Don't delete this one unless you're prepared to delete them all!" is quite possible the biggest Classic Bad Idea. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Exactly what BOZ said. Heck, Mainframe himself got comics (multiple, across two companies) and at least one cartoon focused on him. But for the AFD G.I.Joe debate in general please see http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/. Many third part G.I.Joe sources. Many. Perfect for Wikipedia referencing. Lots42 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
once again collectors directories, prices guides, GIJoe encyclopedias... do nothing to establish notability for individual characters. Ridernyc (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because they don't provide significant coverage of the subject. Pretty basic, also have you actually read these "sources" of yours or did they just come in a Google search, do you have any clue what they say. How did you add it as a source to articles yet you don't know the page number? Ridernyc (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right, some do not provide significant coverage. However, some do. If you are talking about the sources I added to Barbecue (G.I. Joe), the Essential Guide has a Google Books preview that gives me a pretty good idea of its content (the Barbecue entry is not part of the preview, but by looking at some of the other entries I can infer that the coverage will be significant), and I have read the Ultimate Guide and know for a fact that it has significant coverage (i.e., addresses the subject directly and in detail). I don't know the page number because I do not have the book any more and there is no table of contents online. Cerebellum (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link to this preview that provides the information please. Ridernyc (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. Here it is: [1]. They're not kidding about the "limited" part, but you can still see some stuff. Try page 22 for a good example. Cerebellum (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents on page vii is where I got the page number for Barbecue from. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny biographical blurb, far from significant coverage. Ridernyc (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to argue with a subjective statement like that is with another subjective statement: 200 words (the approximate estimated length of Mainframe's entry, extrapolated from Falcon's entry on pg. 45, Low-Lights on p. 51, and Psyche-Out's on pg. 53) is without a doubt significant. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Cerebellum (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been assert through third person websites. 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(G.I._Joe)&oldid=1138046318"