Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess


 * 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   redirect to C.O.P.S.. There's little evidence of any significant real-world notability or coverage of the character itself. Black Kite 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Main character of a notable cartoon series and toyline. He was the leader of the good guys as I recall.  And all of the characters from this series should've been nominated together to save us some time.  You seem to be going after one series after another, nominating everything in it.   D r e a m Focus  07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- yet another article about a character from a minor TV show that has absolutely no sources to back it up. Google News yields nothing, Google Books one that mentions the character in passing- not enough to justify this big huge article. It's almost entirely original research. The tone of the article is also excessively flowery and, while for proper articles this is an issue that can be fixed, here it cannot be done because there are no sources to enable balanced coverage. Reyk  YO!  10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing of value to be had from this article 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 *   — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to C.O.P.S., since it's reasonable to assume that this is and could be a useful search term. The only information reliably sourced (elsewhere, mind) is the voice actor, so there is nothing really to merge. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. Would normally suggest merge to main article but the vast majority of this information is already included in the C.O.P.S. article. Leaving behind a redirect to the main C.O.P.S. article ice certainly warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. no valid reason exists as to there being any pressing need to delete the edit history and why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact to . As even the nominator and bolded delete above suggest, we have merge and redirect locations and thus we would at worst go that route instead of redlinking.  This particular character is not just from a TV show, but was also an action figure, which we can see in the real world.  Not only can verify that it is an action figure with own eyes, we can indeed confirm through a reliable secondary source who voice acted the character from Google Books.  I have sourced the article accordingly.  This particular character's article is unquestionably at least worthy of a redirect as the article itself indicates: "BulletProof is not just a protagonist and the main character of the series..."  Main characters are unquestionably legitimate search terms per WP:SENSE.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better, standard fictional biography. --69.142.103.133 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Has one reference - main character and toyline suggests sourcing feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep main character in major series. Conceivably merge, but I think that for the main characters an article can be justified. In any case, it would certainly be a redirect not a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the detailed sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.216 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is a basic description which hardly covers the subject character hardly worthy of an entire article wikipeda's guidelines state that sources must substantially cover the subject if this subject has to be kept I think it should be merged as there is not overwhelming sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence whatsoever that this fictional character has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that this AfD was never listed on a daily log. I have added it to today's log. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument for for keeping this article seems to notability is inherited because he appeared in COPS as a main character but the only reference is from a encyclopaedia which barely gives a brief description of the character but which is that character was voiced by Ken Ryan now that is hardly substantial coverage to justify a whole article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I still think he's notable as the main character of a notable series. At least the nominator's claim that this is a "minor character" is invalid in my opinion. J I P  | Talk 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough material for an encyclopaedia article. Just a retelling of the story. People would do better to buy/rent the DVDs, read the comic books, or whatever. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Whatever the problems, there does seem to be quite enough material--if anything, it needs to be shortened. the work itself is a suitable source, and the almost complete emphasis of plot is appropriate, for a spin off article, but not the entire work.    DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kitfoxxe it is just a glorified plot summary the only source to assert the characters notability is a encyclopaedia which only details the actor who voiced the character does the article discuss the reception and significance of Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess so if not it fails such basic criteria this article merely represents what wikipedia is not  WP:PLOT. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to C.O.P.S.. The show itself is only arguably notable. It currently has insufficient citation to reliable secondary sources. This article definitely fails the notability standard for coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Reyk. There is no real world notability to speak of, and worse yet, there are NO third party references in this article!   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not factually accurate, as the article does indeed contain a third party reference. It is also not truthful to say it has no real world notability.  Main characters that appear both in a show and as a toy that we can hold in the real world are indeed notable.  We can indeed verify from a secondary source that "C.O.P.S. centred on the story of Baldwin ‘Bulletproof’ Vess, a sort of techno Elliot Ness, and his crusade to bring down Brandon ‘Big Boss’ Babel, the cat-loving, iron-fisted mafia godfather of Empire City."  No legitimate reason exists whatsoever for redlinking the article of the main character of a mainstream franchise and certainly not when it contains some secondary source references that can be merged to the main series article.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the nominator's claim "a minor character" when discussing the single most prominent character in an established notable series makes it seem like he/she thinks individual television show characters are automatically non-notable. J I P  | Talk 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with cops. Was this tried originally? Okip  00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then use the article talk page to discuss a possible merge and redirect. Article subject is not a minor character, but is rather a major character in a notable series and has real-world notability through being subject of a notable toyline. Specially NOW that the article has been sourced since nomination, issues with article length should be handled through regular editing and not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable lead character of notable show adequately supported by encyclopedic references. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the links used as a sources I believe is a fansite used to justify this article and the information is more about the show than the character which means its not substanial coverage. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Dennis Publishing are professional publishers and the source has an editorial staff. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the source provides only the barest of mentions. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect. My searches reveal only trivial mentions of this topic, always in the context of the show. I searched without the "Bulletproof", and by "bullerproof vess" (get it? Bulletproof vest?) and found only the name of the voice actor. But this is covered in the main show article, so the character had not been analyzed at all in reliable third party sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm still amazed why this particular character has been singled out. As has been said previously, this is not only a major character, but the main character in a show that has been established as notable. Not nearly all of the show's other characters have their own articles, but some do, and I haven't seen anyone question their notability. From another, perhaps more important, perspective, I can mention Transformers. I am a Transformers fan but not a C.O.P.S. fan. Pretty much every Transformers character ever has its own Wikipedia article. Some of them are notable on their own, but many exist simply because they're about a toy that had a cartoon character made of it. For example, the Technobots and Terrorcons have, to my recollection, appeared in less than a dozen of the Transformers cartoon's almost one hundred episodes. Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, on the contrast, has appeared in pretty much every episode ever of C.O.P.S. J I P  | Talk 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment: Lots of keyboard wear created by this discussion.  I perceive that the show is considered notable, so we're just arguing about whether the primary character gets his own page or not?  Either way, that's just an organizational question of where to put this content, whether here, or on the show page with a redirect.  Having the separate article does no noticeable harm to the project, so I'll lean keep.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does no harm I don't feel is a valid argument, because the issue is does it have substantial sources to assert notability. The only reliable sources are the encyclopaedia which documents the voice actor and and second site which like the encyclopaedia talks more about the television show premise than the character discussed.  I would support a merge like I mentioned in a nomination for another COPS article but Buttons McBoomBoom and Rock Krusher were merged and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and there is nothing worthy merging except character names Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banj e  b oi   13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to WP:SS, the article C.O.P.S. is very sparse. We should work with reorganization based on sourced content.  Not much coverage is being provided by those who are voting to keep, and my personal research does not show much, either.  I'm not sure why people are arguing that being a main character equates a stand-alone article.  Amount of sourced content should be our litmus test, and if the passage in "Reception" is the best that can be done, we should present the character within the constraints of the main article. Erik (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has 2 sources, but there might be more out there. December21st2012Freak   Talk to me at 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see significant coverage in the sources given and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Only two lines in the entire article have actually been verified: his existence and a name-drop from a nonnotable blogger.  Them From  Space  09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge or redirect. Most of the keep !votes here ignore policy. Nothing supports the proposition that major characters from notable cartoone are somehow notable. Sounds like WP:NOTINHERITED to me. Like every article, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. I challenge anyone to reasonably argue that the bar of significant has been met here. In my view, policy requires deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, main character from notable series. The policy supporting this is called Summary style. As the main character in the series, nearly any discussion of the series will cover him. If there is enough content, it is legitimate to split off the section on this character into its own article. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without any secondary sources which analyse the topic, the topic isn't notable. There is no need to invoke summary style, since there is zero information available from secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to C.O.P.S. since I do not see any worthwhile secondary sources being provided and a personal research attempt did not turn up much of use for a stand-alone article. For example, this is still series-centric, not character-centric.  The TV series article is very sparse, so WP:SS does not apply here; merging preserves edit history and consolidates all C.O.P.S information in one place. Erik (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think is likely the only acceptable compromise because many of the C.O.P.S. characters have been merged into the main character and there clearly isn't sufficient third person data to justify a solo article I would rather a decision one way or the other rather than a no consensus like Big Boss. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of real-world notability, the article's one reference does not prove that. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2010 (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.