Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Boss (C.O.P.S.)

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 No consensus. Discussion of any merger or redirect can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss (C.O.P.S.)

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Jerebin (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a minor character as compared to the other similar articles indiscriminately nominated. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor or not, this article is completely unsourced and lacks any real-world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article concerning a principal and memorable, i.e. notable, main villain from a mainstream series is not completely unsourced (one need only actually look for sources to find them... Anyway, he ranks 7th on a list of "10 Fatest Action Figures of All Time." A main character familiar to millions of people with appearances on a mainstream TV show and as toys has real world notability by the common sense standard as well as the Wikipedic verifiability standard (subject is verified in multiple reliable sources). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 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) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please stop indiscriminately copying and pasting the same comment across multiple Afds concerning subjects of wildly varying notability and verifiability. What applies to a henchman that appears in one episode does not equally apply to Big Boss, the main villain with multiple episodes of appearance on television as well as as an action figure that even made a top ten list. The facts are that this article passes WP:GNG due to non-trivial coverage significant enough to justify some kind of inclusion on Wikipedia. Because the subject is verifiable through multiple secondary sources and because the articles contains sourced out of universe information, no one can honestly blanket dismiss the entire article as "original research." Information I cited from secondary sources written by other people is not my original research... Moreover, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, we do not delete sourced information that can be merged, nor do we redlink articles for which a redirect location exists, in this case C.O.P.S.. This article is not a hoax, not libelous, and has citations from secondary sources. It concerns a memorable character (in fact, the only character I personally actually remember from the show due to the Edward G. Robinson accent) who was the primary antagonist of the series. It is obviously of interest to our readers and editors and there is no valid reason whatsoever ("I don't like it" or "I don't have any familiarity with it" or "I don't want to look for soures and work on it" are all not valid reasons) why in even the worst case scenario such an article would not be merged and/or redirected with edit history intact. Even the minor characters would still at worst be redirected per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. I strongly recommend withdrawing this flood of cookie cutter nominations that do not accurately reflect the diverse individual signicance and potential of the items listed. Some of these can be expanded, some can be merged, some redirected. They are unequivacally not equal. Some concern the main character(s) or location(s) from mainstream fictional universes that span television and toys, whereas other characters and locations are of lesser significance. The sources for these thus varies accordingly and the discussions should reflect as much. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, appears as the main villain of every episode, enough so that any detailed source for any COPS episode or the series itself will also be a source for him. --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, article fails WP:Notability#General notability guideline as it doe's not have "significant coverage in reliable sources", 1 or 2 references are not "significant coverage". If this article is not deleted the YouTube links should be removed per WP:External links#Restrictions on linking. Powergate92Talk 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three sources do, especially when one is a top ten list. The oodles of additional sources available from a Google Search reflect further significant coverage in reliable sources. This character was the main recurring villain on a TV show, as an action figure, and also in their comics. Please note as well that the above vote was canvassed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character in notable toy franchise. I have added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a standard fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show's article Although the sources turning up in a search and presented here don't even come close to establishing independent notability for the character (or any reason to spin him out to his own article, the vast majority of this is just episode synopsis), this is the primary antagonist of the series and I'm leery of !voting delete. Someone another 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create a redirect, to annihilate the excessive original research that is in complete violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Toy may be mentioned in main article. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to show article - No reason not to preserve edit history. That said, does not seem to have the notability for a standalone article. Cerebellum (talk) 15:19, 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.

Big Boss (C.O.P.S.)

zproxy.org