Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cobra characters

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. Nomination withdrawn Big Dom 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cobra characters[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn based on "His birthplace is Montego Bay, Jamaica. He is noted for having little sense of personal hygiene and the sunglasses he wears to cover his blood-shot eyes." That's simply too cool to delete. Never mess with a hygenically challenged Jamaican baddie...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional unencyclopedic cruft with no relevance to the real world and is out of context in general reading. I believe such an article will never be encyclopedic and knowing the wide acceptance of fictional cruft on here probably would have survived a speedy deletion tagging..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please check out the discussion on the WikiProject G.I. Joe talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe#Merge has begun. The article was created, in order to consolidate many of the Cobra character articles that are not notable enough to stand on their own. It is hardly fair to nominate this article for deletion, especially when it is marked as {{underconstruction}}, and was deemed necessary by consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be 200kb long, and it would still be fictional cruft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better a list article than any other kind of article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in construction and I can tell it's uncomplete. I am waiting to see how it's turning out for now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fortdj33. 1) it's under construction pursuant to a WikiProject discussion, and 2) character lists of this sort are part of standard coverage for media franchises, particularly since they help get rid of character articles that don't merit being stand-alone (think of it as a compromise position, if you will). "Fictional cruft" is not helpful and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is an excuse to collect any old cruft and render it "encyclopedic".I ask the question. What credible encyclopedia would list characters completely in universe with no relevance to the real world? Perhaps you can explain to me how this sort of material is encyclopedia worthy? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the other guys said. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This list cannot be fulfilled in one day. It will be built up gradually, much like the rest of wikipedia..." (~ Dr. Blofeld) Sound familiar? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for nominating this has nothing to do with lack of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Please do feel free to expand on your last statement. So far, all you've provided us with boils down to WP:ITSCRUFT -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG there's really a WikiProject G.I. Joe? I wonder how many fan boys turn out here to keep their cruft. So far three members... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought someone who's been around as long as you would know better to be civil, rather than a biter. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why it can't be summarized in Cobra Command article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why List of hotels can't be summarized in Hotel article?♦ -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are hundreds if not several thousand notable hotels which are often prominent real world landmarks, skyscrapers etc. There are not hundreds of Cobra Command characters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because there's a ridiculous number of redlinked hotels in there. And a random sample of live links is more likely than not going to take you to a stub. If a mention in a Frommers or a Lonely Planet guidebook is enough to establish notability, then so is an entry in Ultimate Guide to GI Joe (which interestingly, our characters are). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FYI - one of your "hotels" actually links to an article for a warship. If you ask nicely, I'll tell you which one it is. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF has hotels got to do with this? Are you a sockpuppet of somebody else? Does The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe contain actual out-of-universe information on the characters?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hotels has to do with this because it's a project that you're closely associated with that was nominated AfD and which you fought just as hard to save from deletion, so just pointing out the hypocrisy. 2. I was wondering how long it would take for a sockpuppet accusation to come flying out. Well if you'd bothered to check my userpage, and contribution history you'd know that I am anything but. On the other hand, given that you seem to be losing this particular AfD discussion, I'm really not surprised that you're resorting to this sort of tactic. 3. and yes, the Ultimate Guide contains both in IU and OOU information, but that's not the point. The fact that someone actually bothered to compile it is, as far as I'm concerned, proof of notability in the same vein as you use Frommers and Lonely Planet to back up some of your hotel entries -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no its just rather creepy how you seem to have stalked AFD's I've been involved in without actually commenting or voting "keep" or "delete". So, given the fact you haven't shut about them my first thought was that you were involved in them under a different user name.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." Sun Tzu, The Art of War -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the sub-sections "List of hotels" and "Nomination of List of hotels for deletion" is right near the bottom of your talk page - it's really not very hard to find -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even you claim "none of the things I'm inclined to write about are ever likely to be considered topics of substance by the Literati." Why do you think that? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because I could care less about what the likes of you think about the work that I do. I'm well aware of how the Wikipedia hierarchy works - you're either part of the in-crowd or you're not. I'm just here to write about things that I care about, and I'm quite happy to leave everyone else alone. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest concern is that the majority of articles about fictional characters we have on wikipedia are almost entirely in-universe and magnets for original research. Its a make believe world which is why if they do not contain decent sources and out of universe info its pure fantasy and therefore not meeting the expectations of a formal encylopedia. unless its actually put in context with background info to the casual wikipedia reader in general in comes across as fan cruft. Yes it is possible that articles about fictional characters/episodes can be cleverly written and meet requirements but sadly the majority of articles are fictional cruft and really are way off being encyclopedic in a formal sense. And when we have thousands upon thousands of them like this its a real problem. If we must have articles about every character then the way to go would be a merged list and cleaned up in a way that it does contain out of universe information about the characters which meets requirements. I do hope this is what was intended here because the topic does not exactly strike me as an important one. Hotels are not really my special interest, I'm much more interested in old manors and castles and monasteries. You could argue that none of them are important but at least they exist in the real world... Personally I much prefer to write about hotels which have major architectural/historical significance e.g La Salle Hotel. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be a much better place if editors tried to help other editors with problem articles (such as the in-universe style you cite above), rather than arbitrarily dropping an AfD. Unfortunately, we tend to see far more of the latter than we do the former. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Most of the people who nominate articles I've created end up feeling like they wasted their time doing so and that it would have been better to discuss the problem first. The problem though is that different people often have dramatically different views about what an encyclopedia should be permitted to have and certain subjects seem utterly unencyclopedic to many. Personally I prefer the traditional encyclopedia type subjects than things like web comics and lists of power rangers or teletubbies but no doubts others will claim a list of teletubbies to be highly encyclopedic. But its not a matter of what I like. I'll accept articles on fiction if they contain decent sources and minimal original research. My concern is articles like List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Can you honestly say that the sourcing is credible and contains a wide range of third-party publications? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no worse, and probably better in some ways, than say List of Star Wars characters. The difference is that if you "wonder how many fan boys turn out here to keep their cruft", well the Star Wars fan boys would probably rip you multiple new ones rushing to protect their cruft. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that list is even worse....♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should nominate it for an AfD. I'd loooove to see the responses ;) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no doubts several hundred grown men fan boys who still have a poster of Princess Leia on their bedroom walls would turn up to claim its importance within two minutes, One wonders though why none of them are actually improving it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To each their own. Their fandom of Princess Leia is no less valid than your fandom of E. S. Blofeld. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation and WikiProject Toys, all of which these G.I. Joe and Cobra articles fall under. Just because someone doesn't have an interest in "fictional cruft", does not mean that it isn't encyclopedic... Fortdj33 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question about Cobra Command - There are over a dozen Cobra character articles that are notable enough to stand on their own, and just as many that need to be merged into a list. Merging them into Cobra Command would make that article too large to be effective, and it would eventually result in the information being split off anyway, into an article such as List of Cobra characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I don't have an interest in fictional cruft? I have a big interest in enjoyable film series and cult things. Yes i enjoyed GI Joe, The A Team, The Avengers and Stargate etc. But I don't think wikipedia is the place for excruciating detail about every character. There are fan sites dedicated to things like that. The question still stands, how is this article encyclopedic? Do you plan on discussing the creation of the characters with credible book sources or just intent on purely in universe information which is only understandable to a fan and WP:OR?. You created the article as a GI Joe fan right? What then motivated you if it wasn't for the fact that you WP:ILIKEIT it. If you weren't a fan you wouldn't insist that wikipedia has it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a fan of G.I. Joe, which is why I am a member of WikiProject G.I. Joe, to help with the creation of G.I. Joe-related articles, and improve the coverage of G.I. Joe on Wikipedia. The point to be made here, is that you nominated this article for deletion less than 10 minutes after it was created, without bothering to first inquire why it is necessary, and despite the fact that it was marked {{underconstruction}}. I am not the only fan who feels that the article deserves a chance to be completed with proper references, before someone deems it un-encyclopedic. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say you plan on merging some separate articles which already exist into this list? Well that is something, having an article about every character even minor ones is even worse. OK show to me within the next few days that you will add credible sources and include out of universe info on character development and how they were created and I'll withdraw the nomination. I'm not convinced there are multiple sources in reliable publications on these characters outside of fan books. Prove me wrong and I'll withdraw the nom for thinking it would be purely in universe original research. No I didn't give the article a chance to develop because it seemed an unencyclopedic topic. 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld

I know that it's difficult not to take this personally, since you are the person that nominated the article for deletion. But I fail to see why we should continue to justify this article to you, when you have already shown your lack of interest in the subject. Furthermore, I am reluctant to merge information from several articles into this one, if there's a possibility that this article will be deleted. I understand that's just part of the nature of Wikipedia, but you have already made your point clear, and I would appreciate you allowing the editors of this project to continue with their work, instead of being nonconstructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists for major fictional franchises are routinely kept, and the fact that this is a merge target for multiple non-notable characters, as supported by a Wikiproject, only makes this that much more compelling. GI Joe has spanned multiple decades and multiple media forms. Lists may (and in such cases, should) include many individually non-notable elements, while themselves meeting inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree a merger of this non notable articles would be better but still needs reliable sources and out of universe info. The thing is List of Cobra characters says nothing about the series. List of G.I. Joe characters all summarised in one article would seem appropriate.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like many have noted before, the article is still {underconstruction}. Did you miss that part, and now you're just fighting a rearguard action to save face? A single consolidated list of GI Joe characters containing the level of OOU detail that you demand would be unmanageable, and hence the rationale for breaking it down and organising it into smaller articles. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNG still applies and that's the core of this. Has any reliable source talked about these in an out-of-universe way? has anyone ever discussed their impact, their importance culturally, anything? as it stands this belongs on a GI Joe wikia not in an encyclopedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons. 1) Per fortdj33, this article was created pursuant to a merge discussion and this AfD threatens to derail the nice consensus that we had going over there. Of course, the nominator could not have known this. 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether its the 500 Transformers character articles in Category:Autobots and Category:Decepticons or the 1000 lists of characters in the subcats of Category:Lists of fictional characters, there seems to be a community consensus that articles consisting only of fictional information are pretty OK. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of an ongoing merge, this is not helpful. It is like the people who tried to delete List of Pokémon (1-20) before they were done merging all the species into it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:50, 29 March 2011 (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.