Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwolf (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. (WP:SNOW). Regarding the possibility of a merge (per User:Steelpillow's !vote), a merge discussion can be initiated on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Airwolf (helicopter)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional element of a notable TV series. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the fictional vehicle separate from the fiction. At first glance the article appears to be well-sourced, but the cited sources that are about the actual fictional helicopter are fan publications and blogs, while other listed sources are about the helicopter upon which the fictional copter is based and other ancillary subjects. The notability of the TV series does not confer notability upon the fictional element. PROD removed with a reference to WP:MOSFICT but nothing in that guideline allows for articles on elements of fiction that are not supported in and of themselves by independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:MOSFICT allows the works themselves to serve as primary information for "descriptive claims", which is the case with this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From MOSFICT: "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources—this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." The work can be used to describe aspects of the fictional element but the work by itself can never establish the separate notability of a fictional element within it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Airwolf the helicopter is, in fact, notable: a search on gBooks turns up a number of source. Also the nominator's campaign against fictional subjects has gone beyond the ability to WP:AGF to a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I expect an immediate apology for this personal attack and abject failure to assume good faith. If you believe I have abused the process, report it in the appropriate forum; don't level lies here in an attempt to sway the debate. You're an administrator; you should know better. Second, there are plenty of sources that discuss the series and plenty that discuss the helicopter on which this fictional helicopter is based but not about the fictional helicopter itself. You seem like you've been around long enough to know that WP:GOOGLE hits are meaningless in these discussions. The sources need to be independent and offer substantial coverage of the fictional helicopter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He gave an opinion, which seems accurate to me also, more so because you chose to lazily PROD them rather than go directly to AFD. Even if he retracts it, I stand by it. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I stand by my assertion that both of you are levying bullshit accusations in an effort to save an article (that you started, oops, you lazily forgot to disclose that, huh) by attacking the nominator instead of addressing the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Where am I required to discolose that I created the article? Is it even suggested that doing so is a good idea? Perhaps it's in the notice where one notifies the creator of an AFD or PROD nomination. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made no personal attacks, simply an observation. Even if it is not the case it is the way your actions are perceived. You, on the other hand, have egreriously made personal attacks. See also WP:LIARLIAR, and please remember that WP:GHITS is a very, very different thing than gBooks. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Fnlayson and BR. Also, the article is as much about the individual aircraft used as Airwolf 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. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep—seems to have sufficient WP:GNG notability, both as a specific built aircraft, and as a fictional aircraft. N2e (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would help to see evidence of notability.  I saw a few articles on Google News that seemed to be about the helicopter itself, independent of the TV series, but they were subscription-only.  Many of the Google Books results seem to be a single sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with Airwolf. 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. WP:COMMONSENSE, purleeze. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Steelpillow, it makes sense to keep this article as a spinout of the main article on the show, given its size. WP:MOSFICT permits such spinout articles (in rare cases), provided they are sufficiently concise and otherwise adhere to content standards. As a central element of the show that ends up being covered by a lot of the sources that cover the show itself, I think this subject can have a good article written about it.  — daranz [ t ] 14:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As a perfectly valid offshoot of the series' article. I don't understand the nominator's reasoning, it's fairly obvious that the topic has enough independent coverage to justify a standalone article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly reasonable main feature of a fictional series that even the nominator agrees is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly is notable .... - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.