Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank (2nd nomination)

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. Wizardman 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Tank[edit]

Violates wikipedia's policy on notability, particularly the general notability guideline that calls for coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. Mammoth Tank has not received coverage outside of Command and Conquer, and should thus be deleted. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several policies. For extensive argumentation, see User:Krator/Gamecruft. User:Krator (t c) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to CnC Wiki (at http://cnc.wikia.com ) SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any reliable sources the article is original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of numerous reliable sources that even demonstrate that real world models have been made beyond the appearance in the games, which means the game guidelines alone cannot suffice in this case, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good argument, it is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or a specialized encyclopedia on toys/models or a specialized encyclopedia on fictional weapons, etc. Our reader are clearly interested in this article. In order to reach a real consensus, I encourage these editors to be notified of this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Models and action figures aren't independent of the subject and don't meet the general notability guideline. This is a non-notable topic until someone can prove otherwise. Randomran (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Models and action figures are indeed independent and reflect a degree of notability (not all tanks in games are made into real world objects) and thus notability has been proven. Saying it's not notable at this point would be akin to saying a banana is an apple. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not because they're not secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, because they are covered in secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any opinion in there? Please see WP:PSTS. "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." Primary sources include artistic and fictional works. Action figures are NOT a secondary source. Please stop ignoring policy. If you want to make the case that this is a situation where we should ignore all rules, please do that. But don't simply make up rules. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action figures are not video games and so the relevant guidelines here are not simply video game guidelines, but whatever would cover a combination of BOTH video games and toys. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being deleted in compliance with the general notability guideline, and so it doesn't matter if this is a toy or a game. That said, the game guidelines are based on the general notability guideline and highly important to quality control. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Google test cannot be used to assert notability. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Izno, it must be kept. Since Google does not have every written and spoken word, itcannot be used to check things. Besides that, Wikipedia policy is so often discussed and there are so many guidelines that it doesn't make sense anymore. It would be wise to use WP:Common sense instead of all the other bullcrap. Mallerd (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The fact that google cannot assert notability argues for deletion, not to keep the article. Further, you cannot say that it doesn't make sense anymore: There are other articles here on Wikipedia which fail the guidelines / policies and which are deleted every day. --Izno (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability due to the lack of independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of secondary sources causes it to fail WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reasons cited by Edison, fails WP:N due to lack of non-trivial coverage by third party publications or sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia --SkyWalker (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've copied the information to Wikia, in a rather unfit manner, but the job is done. The page history links back to here. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (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.