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

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 all but redirect/merge some. There seems to be some discrepancy regarding which are notable enough for stand alone articles and which are not, that can be discussed on the individual character's talk pages. Clearly, there is no consensus to delete these.

talk) 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Barbecue (G.I. Joe)

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

Since people in this [1] are complaining that not enough characters are being nominated I figured I would bunch them together and start nominating groups. Non-notable GIJoe characters:

Airtight (G.I. Joe)
Airwave (G.I. Joe)
Altitude (G.I. Joe)
Ambush (G.I. Joe)
Back-Stop (G.I. Joe)
Backblast (G.I. Joe)
Barbecue (G.I. Joe)

None of them have any real coverage except for plot info from comics. Most of them are barely more then a stub. Before people complain, yes I know there are tons of bad GIJoe articles out there. Yes I think they all need to be dealt with. Yes I am working my way alphabetically through Category:G.I._Joe_characters. None of that is a reason to keep, please avoid these arguments. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, as they do not have real-life notability outside this franchise (whereas G.I. Joe iteslf does). Or improve the list at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters by a merge and redirect to there, per Cerebellum and 70.80.234.196 pablo_hablo. 13:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)edited pablo_hablo. 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you have appeared to take my request for clarification as a form of some kind of complaint. I have made it quite clear that, personally, I have no vested interest in any of the articles. Anyway, that being said, merge. With that being said I suggest we redirect all - something I would have voted had the intentions of the AfD been made more clear. -WarthogDemon 14:49, 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
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

List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character. Cerebellum (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL All characters would be listed in books about collectible toys. The Barbecue article is quite well done. If a toy wasn't popular-didn't sell well, then it wouldn't be released again in newer toy lines. Notable appearances in various comic book series, cartoons, games, and whatnot, also adds to their notability. Nothing gained by deleting it, since if you aren't interested in it you wouldn't ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying in AfDs that "if you aren't interested you wouldn't find it anyway". That's balls, particularly here, where each of these dolls has a name which has a primary use outside the toyshop. pablo_hablo. 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't find them without looking for "G.I. Joe)" in the search, you otherwise finding something else. Dream Focus 21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: balls. You can't predict how people will search - we attempt to sometimes by creating redirects, but it's not an exact science.
That aside, I still don't see the logic of "you wouldn't find it unless you're looking for it" as an inclusion criterion. Is it documented anywhere? pablo_hablo. 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this [2] have to do with anything? There are 2,944 results for Barbecue when someone searches for it. Do you want to erase all but the first one? The one for the G.I.Joe character appears 5th on the list of search results and has (G.I.Joe) next the name, and a summary description telling you its a character from that series. No one would be confused, and click their way to the article without meaning to. Dream Focus 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found four results easily in Google book search. [3] Two are just listing all G.I. Joe characters, but the next two are for toy collectors, listing only notable toys. Schroeder's Collectible Toys: Antique to Modern Guide and Sharon Huxford, Bob Huxford - Antiques & Collectibles - 1995. Dream Focus 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listed in several phone books, can I also have an article. These directories of every character do nothing to establish notability of individual characters. Ridernyc (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A phone book is different than being listed in a book published to show all the notable toys. Those two books count as reliable third party references. Dream Focus 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listing the notable toys, it's listing any GIJoe ever made, in other words a directory. Stop saying they only list notable toys. Ridernyc (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last two results I mention list all notable toys, not every single toy ever made, and most of their content is not G.I. Joe related. Dream Focus 10:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to
WP:N. Alternatively, merge all into a single list article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete all~~ Unfortunately listifying things is how we're circumventing notability these days... so redirect all to the trivial list. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 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. I'm not sure what JB means-- does he mean that we are circumventing notability by mentioning them at all even in a list, or that we are avoiding making articles by just reducing them to a list? Either way, he;s wrong. 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 Airtight and Barbecue for sure - major characters in a major series, both with plenty of "other media" appearances. Keep or Merge/redirect the rest per DGG; they each have "other media" appearances, but probably have less potential. BOZ (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Ambush to Keep only - the character is even getting mention in obituaries for the actor who portrayed him in the cartoon,
  Andrew Koenig. Change Backblast to Keep only as well; aside from a few comics appearances and a cameo in the cartoon, he was also a playable character in a recent video game. Airwave, Altitude, and Back-Stop I would prefer Keep, but like I say they have less potential so Merge would be acceptable if necessary. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. As seen above in this discussion, there are plenty of third party sources about the vast swath of the G.I.Joe universe. Give people a chance to incorporate these sources please. Furthermore, the obscure guys aren't quite as. Many have made many appearances in the cartoons; some have been repainted and re-imagined for conventions. Others have had new releases for the movie despite not actually appearing in said movie. All arguments for keeping, IMHO Lots42 (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to my comment above, please see this. http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/ Information about the many, many third party publications that talk about G.I.Joe. 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the list of characters. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really dislike these mass deletions. Major character in the series, alternative, merge. Okip 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, major character? Ridernyc (talk) 04:09, 24 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.