Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser and Blitz

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 redirect to C.O.P.S.. Any sourceable content can be merged to C.O.P.S.#Cast and Characters at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser and Blitz

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

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.

<del> — as nom; it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to C.O.P.S. this is the only logical outcome, much work was invested in this article and yet no sources listed. PamelaBMX (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging unsourced content will not cause it to be sourced. The question is notability, which I think this passes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE or merge there is a lack of reliable third person sources which discuss the character to demonstrate significant coverage of the character to justify an article and the YouTube videos fall foul of copyright usage use per WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether someone has invested WP:EFFORT into an article is irrelevant PamelaBMX. The question is does the article have or can there be found reliable third person sources to show that Bowser and Blitz which discuss the reception and significance of the characters which is basic wikipedia criteria. I feel like many of C.O.P.S. articles it doesn't follow this criteria and using YouTube videos doesn't count. I am willing to accept a merge to the main C.O.P.S. article but the issue I have with merge is this has been done with the likes of Buttons McBoomBoom and Rock Krusher and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and nothing worthy merging except character names.Dwanyewest (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...not from what I see - the subsection of Cast and Characters on the main article page is names only. It could easily be converted into a table with brief characteristics of each character. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing but plot summary and original research. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this unoriginal research per What Wikipedia is in some manner or other, whether that means continued improvement or redirecting with edit history intact this valid search term that is not a hoax nor libelous per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. We can verify with the most reliable sources we have: our senses. Using our sense of sight, we can see that this character appeared both on TV and as a toy. We can even purchsase the character to hold in our hands in the real world. No actual reason exists for a need to redlink something that is not something say I just made up. Rather this is a character from a memorable mainstream toy and TV show franchise that has relevance to those who study toys and cartoons alike. Per Wikipedia:Editors matter, we are considerate to our fellow editors and readers rather than wanting to get rid of simply what we personally don't like. And in this case, there is just no reason why at worst we wouldn't redirect with edit history intact. I hope the article can be improved instead, but any reasonable admin would at worst redirect to a relevant cast list in the main article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure plot regurgitation, no secondary sources. None of the keep arguments above have the faintest shred of validity. Abductive (reasoning) 08:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on sourcing. Too big to merge, and it appears to be a standard fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete grossly violates our policy which disallows original research. JBsupreme (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks fine, plenty of valid information which someone interested in the show and its characters would find interesting and useful to read. Wikipedia doesn't just exist to show things that some reviewer thought worthy of mention. I just reverted an edit which someone tried to delete 99% of the article. Wait until the AFD closes, before taking such drastic action if consensus decides that is to be done. Dream Focus 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL... "Article looks fine", what planet are you from? Maybe Wikia will take this crap, but we have very explicit policies against these type of articles. JBsupreme (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avoid personal attacks and needlessly confrontational language. Editors can disagree without being disagreeable. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect/Merge In reading the above comments in this debate, I haven't seen a single person even attempt to justify this article's inclusion based on the standard criteria for inclusion. I suspect this is because there is no way to actually justify including this article based on notability. In fact, I more than suspect this -- a GNews, GScholar and GHits search confirms this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean, it doesn't even get more than 2 or 3 Google hits that are about the topic and aren't mirrors or Wiki products. The two GNews hits are the character names appearing in credits or a plot summary (and one mention per hit), and there are no Scholar hits at all. Clarifying: I support a redirect/merge of content as well, although any merge needs to be handled carefully and with an eye toward not overwhelming the target article with a ton of information on one character. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll make a similar comment here as I did on the related AfD for Squeeky Clean (since closed and deleted). What you describe above is not a reason to keep. Notability of each character is not inherited by having appeared in a notable show -- them's the rules. There needs to be evidence of notability, plain and simple. I have looked for some, and am turning up literally nothing. I would support merging a small amount of this content into the COPS article, but this article should be deleted if nobody can find literally any reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability (I have tried -- it's just not out there, although if someone finds something I'll naturally change my vote!). By "small" I mean that the character descriptions could be fleshed out a bit, similar to many other TV show articles on Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there is wide disagreement on the best way to handle character articles but my opinion remains the same. In many cases we should simply re-organize the content and there is not a good reason to delete the content. If you pulled all the content into one massive article you would quickly look to how to split it out in a commonsense fashion. Some editors have gone the traditional route and created a stub for every character that seemed needed. i think a character list would make more sense and serve our readers better. In either case a thoughtful and constructive merge is the way to go, not deletion. -- Banjeboi 06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am more than fine with a thoughtful and constructive merge :). Modifying my vote above to make that clear. My hesitation with simply voting "merge" is that you can't really merge more than (arbitrary percentage inbound) 5% of this article's content into the target article and have it still be "thoughtful and constructive," if you get me. But, again, fine with merging, think that is the way to go, and that's how the Squeeky Clean AfD turned out, more or less. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:13, 14 March 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.