Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masters of the Universe vehicles

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 delete. Sufficient consensus to suggest that the topic is non-notable exists. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria is WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TOYS,WP:NOTE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Fancruft is not a reason for deletion. Toys is a failed proposal - and in any case the toys of these vehicles (in aggregate) meet the proposed notability criteria. Masters of the Universe is quite notable. The vehicles of masters of the universe formed a massive and notable part in the series (not to mention the earlier mentioned range of toys). Certainly many of the individual vehicles are not notable - that's why many don't have their own articles - but in aggregate, notable and verifiable. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so noteworthy provide reliable third person sources then.WP:SOURCES, it doesn't meet general notability WP:GNG Dwanyewest (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for fan speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as statement says, the toylines are sold by Mattel and purely original research. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, Toys, and Essays don't deserve mention, but WP:N and WP:RS are relevant. Masters of the Universe is a notable toyline in general ($1B profit, supposedly per Toy Monster: The Big, Bad World of Mattel p. 129), and can be found mentioned in books on toys, Mattel, Saturday morning cartoons, media and children's psychology and so on. Specific MOTU toys, or the MOTU vehicle line in general, I don't believe get such coverage. Items in a list don't have to rise to the same level of notability as the subject of an article, but are still subject to content policies Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items. That the items are redlinked and that some have already been created is also a problem; a Wikipedia:Red link asserts article-level notability and WP:V, which I don't believe will be the case. Шизомби (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it Wind Raider, Talon Fighter, Battle Ram and Attak Trak need deletion as its part of the problem of fancruft.

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support the WP:BUNDLE of those either in this AfD or perhaps a better option, a separate bundle for articles on MOTU vehicles, but read that and decide for yourself; it's not always a good idea. Consider also the options under WP:BEFORE. And again, it doesn't really help matters to keep saying "fancruft." The essay WP:FANCRUFT itself notes it can be uncivil and WP:ITSCRUFT is something to avoid. The main, major problems here are N, RS, V and maybe OR. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure someone will let me know why I'm wrong, :) but I think that looking at a page full of red links shows that there is a lack of notability. If the subjects themselves aren't worthy of articles, then why would a list of them be any more worthy or notable? Sabiona (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links aren't a valid reason to delete something. A list on Wikipedia isn't just to aid in navigation and link to various articles, but can also exist like an almanac, showing information about a notable subject. WP:LIST A massively profitable series of toys is rather notable to list. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a 1987 news story in Chicago Tribune that says the sales of these toys accounted for a billion dollars since 1982. All of the toys are notable, since they, and their insanely profitable sales, get news coverage. Plus common sense. You have a series that major, and this is a key part of it. You can't fit them all on one page, so its a valid content fork to split things into side articles for easier viewing. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If a product line (or lines) are notable then mention it as a footnote in the Masters of the Universe article, don't create a separate long list of unreferenced material. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability and WP:V are issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not finding much on these, not even when searching by pairs of names in the list. Even collector's forums don't seem to arrange them this way. Maybe they were sold in packages with their riders? Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 7 January 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.