Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Thunder (helicopter)

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. Consensus opposed to deletion - no comment on whether or not to merge though. That can happen through normal editing. v/r - T P 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Thunder (helicopter)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional element of a notable film. There are no independent reliable sources that attest to the separate and independent notability of the fictional helicopter itself. There are sources about the helicopter upon which the fictional craft is based but that does not impart notability to the fictional craft. The article is currently sourced to the film's DVD (not independent) and to a non-reliable blog. The unquestioned notability of the film does not confer notability upon any of the fictional elements contained within. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Thunder#Blue Thunder helicopter, as an element of a notable film. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is as much about the individual aircraft used as Blue Thunder as it is the fictional aspect. Granted, it could use more/better sources, but the reasonable thing to have done with a long-standing article created by experienced users would have been to tag it for sources and notability first, not slap a on PROD when it should have been obvious the deletion wasn't going to be non-controversial, as is required by WP:PROD. - BilCat (talk)

"Better" sources? How about any sources that are not either the DVD or a personal fan page? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete—there seem to be no sources that establish WP:GNG notability, either as a specific built aircraft, or as a fictional aircraft. All the current sources are from within the genre of the movie and its making. N2e (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blue Thunder. There are some newspaper articles on Google News that describe the helicopter as the star of the film, but I'm not sure that there's really enough significant coverage of the helicopter by itself, independent of the film, to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep because well cited and professionally written.--71.135.163.123 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Blue Thunder. It is notable within the context of the series. Whether or not we need a separate page for it should be based on aricle readability and not on petty rule-bashing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reasonable main feature of a fictional series that even the nominator agrees is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly is notable .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, if it's so clearly notable, where are all the sources? It should be easy to produce a few. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the age of the series, many (most?) sources are likely to be in print publications. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Thunder#Blue Thunder helicopter per lack of evidence of WP:GNG. There's already due weight content there, and nothing reliably sourced which would warrant even selective merging. The keep !votes are not presenting any sources or valid rationales to demonstrate notability, and the position on offline sources is not whether they are valid but whether we know them to exist. -- Trevj (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2013 (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.