Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullet King

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 Tom Clancy's The Division. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet King

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

Non-notable video game character. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division - It was notable enough for the International Business Times, (a non-gaming-centric publication) to cover, as well as myriad gaming-news outlets to have covered. That said, I can certainly see how this is a rather niche bit of information that may not merit its own whole article. I maintain that it's notable enough to be kept in some form or another. Ghoti (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this thought; the character is probably not significant enough to warrant a separate article, but I think a merge into Tom Clancy's The Division would be appropriate. I think this will likely become The Division's Loot Cave "Loot Cave", which has it's own snippet in that article. Mischivin (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bullet King is a well known NPC in gaming community. A full guide about the Bullet King exploit has been released [1] on a gaming site that has a lot of notoriety. Tarballqc (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But since the exploit has been closed in the latest release, this seems like a thing that will not have lasting notability. Remember, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The exploit may have been removed, but the notable history and the NPC itself remain. Ghoti (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division#Reception - Enough coverage to be mentioned, sure, but per the spirit of WP:NOTTEMP, a standalone spinoff is hardly supportable. (Disclosure: I farmed the shit out of BK before he got patched <3) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salvidrim. Has coverage and history. Definitely not notable enough for own page. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:NOTNEWS. Since the exploit's already been fixed in such a short amount of time, I can't imagine anybody looking it up on Wikipedia to learn more about it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division. It does have coverage, but I don't think that it needs its own article. This appears to be the best solution. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Clancy's The Division as suggested because this is questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge as suggested, not enough notability. Just because there's a few news articles about the NPC doesn't mean it's automatically notable enough to have it's own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above arguments. It would be a great fact for the parent article, but on its own it is not notable enough. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - while the sources show that its worth a mention, there's very little content here, nor is there really any potential for expansion, and all of the content is strictly in the context of The Division, so it makes much more sense as a mention there... Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 28 March 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.