Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (A–C)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)]
List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (A–C)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Also nominated:
- )
- )
- )
- )
Wikipedia
WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ARTNsays that the current state of the article doesn't determine the topic's notability. The question is, is "List of G.I. Joe characters/playsets" a notable topic that is represented in reliable independent sources? Well, there are independent published books about the franchise as a whole:
- The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994: Identification and Price Guide by Mark Bellorno, F&W Media/Penguin Books (2009).
- Warman's G.I. Joe Field Guide by Karen O'Brien, Krause Publications (2005)
- And looking at Newspapers.com...
- "G.I. Joe collector talks about appeal of original man of action" by Preston Jones, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Aug 6, 2009)
- "Plastic warriors of childhood lure nostalgic baby boomers" by Glenn Garvin, Miami Herald (July 6, 2008)
- "G.I. Joe: Action figure has worn many faces in his 35 years of living — just don't call him a doll" by Amy Wilson, The Orange Country Register (Jan 2, 2000)
- "G.I. Joe soldiers on at 40: G.I. Action Girl Nurse is 'holy grail' to collectors" by Richard Chin, Knight Ridder Newspaper Service (Jan 22, 2004)
- I think that these sources demonstrate that each individual character or playset may not be notable on its own, but as a collection, it certainly is. (By the way, I think that this list may be more about the TV show characters while my sources are about the action figures, but the nominator mentioned a "toy catalogue" so I'm responding to that.) — Toughpigs (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and develop further, not a "toy catalogue" but rather character lists for a decades-long multimedia franchise. That many of the sources are primary is not a concern for such lists, given that a work is the most reliable source for its own content, though the nominator admits indirectly that there are secondary sources as well, and many of the series' characters have/merit standalone articles. Whether these should be trimmed down (maybe to omit those characters not mentioned in any secondary source, or those never depicted in TV, comics, or film), or whether these lists have value in being comprehensive, is a matter for ordinary discussion and editing to address by those familiar with the subject matter. In any event using an indiscriminate wrecking ball to the whole series of lists is not a valid option. postdlf (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments by WP:ATD. The lists may need a trim so that they can be consolidated into a single list, but that is not a matter for AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)]
- KEEP Character lists for a very notable franchise, and a lot of those listed have a link to their own articles even. Dream Focus 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It needs a lot more sources outside what it has; its item-to-source ratio is horrid. I wanted to nominate this article myself but knew it would be chatter) 23:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep - Sources found by Toughpigs indicate a WP:LISTN pass it looks like. Needs a solid trimming though. The over-detailed fancruft can be trimmed down, and a stricter inclusion criteria can be made. Probably a higher bar of significance should be needed for inclusion, there's no reason why this needs to be split into five separate lists. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)]
- Comment - For context, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe). Those discussions led to the creation of the character lists. See also the Yojoe Collector Books list, some of those are RS. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Individual characters may not be notable, but taken together either as a tv show or a toy line, they are. Needs more sources, but they do exist, as evidenced by above. Rhino131 (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per LISTN, although I wouldn't oppose a trim and merging to one list. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:TNT, which this is a textbook example of. I wouldn't be opposed to a single list showing the most absolutely notable GI Joe characters, but this is more like a fan wiki in its breadth and lack of notability. Blow it up and start over.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep: It seems obvious Wikipedia might be a little bit of a G.I. Joe toy catalog. There are these several lists and WP:SIGCOV goes into pretty good detail concerning "Availability of secondary sources" and "Independent of the subject", and Wikipedia:Independent sources gives good coverage, that do not seem to be in agreement with the above statement. A statement was made I totally agree with: "I dislike the practice of deleting individual character pages for fictional characters, merging them to a list, and then trying to delete the list.", if that has happened. Articles dating back to 2005 that are bloated, lacking sources, and possibly too spread out, needs attention, but that is not within the scope of AFD. With clear consensus above "maybe" some knowledgeable editors will help out. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)]
- Demonstrating notability of a pop culture topic requires secondary sources. But verifiability for particular statements can be established by primary sources, such as when we are giving basic, noninterpretive descriptions of the content of those primary sources. Hope this helps, postdlf (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep "GI Joe" is the pop/toy culture equivalent of Olympus Mons. scope_creepTalk 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This seems like another case if a character list from a major franchise being in terrible shape. But thats not a reason for deletion.talk) 17:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)]
- 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.