Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clamp Champ

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 Masters of the Universe. Even the article notes that his role is minimal. Nevertheless he has been mentioned in WP:RS albeit not signifigantly. We can redirect without prejudice until such time as he becomes truly notable. JodyB_talk 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp Champ

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the article, I'd point out that he was notable as being the only black character introduced to the original series, as well as his notable comic book appearances. Also, he was one of the characters featured in their live action performance Masters Of the Universe' Tour mentioned in two major news sources which I've added to the article. Dream Focus 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary and like many of the other Masters of the Universe characters

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you consider this a plot summary? Have you actually read the article? It introduces the character in the first bit, listing their powers, as is standard for fictional characters of this sort. In the next section, it list what different media he has been in, each paragraph mentioning a different thing: Toy introduction of character complete with mini-comic, Marvel comics appearance, appearances in UK comics, reasons why he wasn't in the cartoon, additional information about the plan to add him in the 2002 relaunch, and a notable show parodies him. The next section mentions he was one of the characters in the live action performance they did in various parts of America. Dream Focus 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other characters in the series also nominated: Rio Blast, Scare Glow, Ninjor (Masters of the Universe) Dream Focus 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A single, dubiously sourced, sentence at the end is supposed to justify the vast amounts of fancruft preceding it? Dwanyewest is correct; this is just a vehicle for plot summary and other trivia. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character history section is not, IMO "fancruft" and is not pure plot summary, having significant aspects of real world impact. However it does need cited sources. 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete non-notable character, No notability outside of the franchise. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we do not have to go to the ends of the earth to verify its existence from a notable show and toy franchise. Just look here. As such, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no reason has been presented (nor is there one anyway) as to why we not either continue to improve this article or merge the sourced material from it or even redirect it. Its title is plausible as a search term for the millions of people interested in toy and cartoon history and it comes from a multi-million dollar franchise as well. WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are never acceptable reasons for deletion and certainly not when we have merge and redirect locations and the subject we are discussing is not something someone just made up. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one ever performs the mergers. This junk just sits around forever. Ridernyc (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason why not to at worst redirect. We don't need to protect the public from this material. We delete that which has no serious value to anyone or that is legally damaging (hoax, libel). Toys and television are major industries and in the former with collectors as well. Toys are relevant to many people, both emotionally and financially. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have notability criteria for inclusion in the project. I can confirm tons of stuff that gets deleted by CSD everday. I can confirm almost every band that gets deleted, yet we still delete them. Ridernyc (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't. "Notability" is subjective. And one could make a serious case that something that appears on a television show and as a toy and is familiar to millions of people is obviously notable. There is no objective need to delete here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon ended in '85, this character was created in '86, in other words he never appeared on TV. I also highly doubt that millions would recognize this character. Ridernyc (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot go by doubt, but what we can verify. And we know that the page gets over 1,000 hits a month. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow down to quoting page views, you know as well as I do page views have no place in an AFD conversation. Ridernyc (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not...as it just further demonstrates that we are discussing something that is verifiable, from a notable franchise, and that is important to other editors and readers, ergo no reason exists for not preserving in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing but someone making assumptions. I already showed you you were wrong once. You assume he notable, just like you assumed he was on a cartoon series. Ridernyc (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he is something we can gold in our hands in the real world. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a sufficient argument. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a not a reason for deletion, either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also just because something exists doesn't make it notable verfiable proof has to be shown. WP:ITEXISTS Dwanyewest (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being part of a mainstream franchise and being verifiable does make it notable enough for at worst a redirect. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page views? Google hits? A lack of notability trumps that. But knowing who is backing its keeping, it will be kept forever and be of poor quality forever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but consider for merging if done properly. Absolutely certainly should be at least a redirect. No matter how one feels on this sort of article, there is no valid reason against a redirect. As for going by count of hits on a page, it really does not matter, because we cover both popular and specialized topics. A page with low counts is still part of an encyclopedic record; a bad page with high counts is all the more urgently a problem that needs to be corrected. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 23 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.