Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioHazard

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 keep. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BioHazard[edit]

Non-notable robot. Fails WP:N, WP:V for having no reliable independent third-party sources, and WP:NOR for appearing to be entirely original research, WP:NPOV for being written like a magazine article, with statements like "It was the most successful robot in the heavyweight division of BattleBots" and other sentences being used for dramatic effect. Chardish (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. The rest is cleanup which is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Did actually win two (or so. Memory's a little foggy since show was canceled) heavyweight championships on a N show (don't know how it helps with notability, but several toys of the robot were produced by Jakks Pacific early in this decade). Does need heavy cleanup, but that's no reason to bring this to AFD. Doc Strange (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that if we're trying to establish notability, we need to determine if there's independent notability, i.e. notability independent of the parent TV show. The only way that a not-independently-notable topic deserves its own article is if there is enough verifiable information on the topic to warrant it. Chardish (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding the TV show axe is currently forbidden by ArbCom. In any case, the robot is frequently cited as a champion in a sport which transcends the particular show/format. C.f. Robot Wars Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What's this ArbCom ruling and how did I violate it? - Chardish (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is mostly referring to a few new proposed notability guidelines like WP:EPISODE, and others that will define what Wikipedia considers notable for television characters. You can read about it here Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see this article as being about a non-notable robot that happened to be featured on a short-lived television series and not about a "television character." - Chardish (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BattleBots was not short lived (5 seasons on a major cable television network) also, the robot was a champion on the show (4 times) more times than any other robot. That gives it some notability, and just because the show is over does not mean that the robot is no longer notable. Notability never expires. Doc Strange (talk)19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If article survives Afd, "For other uses, see Biohazard (disambiguation)" should be added to article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this the typography of Resident Evil in Japan? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the game Resident Evil is known as Biohazard in Japan. But it has no bearing in this article or its AFD nom. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (provisionally), needs references and third-party citations. The author must provide this. It is not the responsibility of the reader. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:22, 26 February 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.