Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio-Zoids


 * 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   merge to Zoids. Brandon (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bio-Zoids

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability. TTN (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - For a number of reasons. First you were a tad misleading with you statement " This is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability."  In the opening statement of the article; "Bio-Zoids are a special type of Zoids released as part of the Genesis line and used in the Zoids: Genesis anime" actually implies the notability in two ways.  First, the Zoids themself have been found both notable and have actually been in-line cited and referenced in the main article.  Likewise the Zoids: Genesis has been found notable.  As these item are an extention of the same product line, yes, they should be found notable also.  As with regards to most every toy that hits the street, even the notable ones there very little, if any, main stream media coverage.  Most of the coverage is found in specialty on-line collectors pages.  In this case I judt did a quick eBay search to see if this item is popular or not.  After reviewing over 400 listings for this item, I would say it is popular.  Typically I would have just expressed a merge/redirect opinion in cases like these.  However, the detail and explanations that go along with each individual item would be lost and would just make the merge pages to crowed.  That is the reasoning behind my Keep opinion.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest actually looking over WP:N before using it in your arguments. "The notability of a parent topic is not inherited by subordinate topics" directly counters your argument. You need sources to independently establish notability, not some search on eBay. TTN (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohh I know the notability guidelines . What I expressed was that the Items themselves, as a group are, notable.  These items are part of that group, hence notable. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I quoted, notability is not passed down to subtopics. Zoids is notable as a franchise, but that does not mean that its twenty or so different toy lines are also notable. You need to provide reliable sources that provide signifcant coverage of the topic in order to show that this specific release is actually notable. TTN (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree here but each release of that particular item is not a new toy line requiring the establishment of notability for each and every item in that particular group of items that has already been found notable.  If that were the case, your next project should start with the Barbie line of toys.  As noted here  she even has here own catagory.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please actually read over the notability guideline. You keep linking to it, but you don't seem to actually understand it at all. Notability is established by sources. That's it. It doesn't matter what Barbie, G.I. Joe, or any other franchise does with their articles. They don't set a precedent, and even then, that category only contains a couple of different toy lines from what I can see, and they aren't even directly related to Barbie anyway. TTN (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you are missing my point. The notability for these items is already established through their use in both being part of the Zoids group and through their use in Anime as specifically talked about in Anime News Network.  What you are asking for is that Bio Raptor be found notable seperate from Bio Ptera and that Bio Ptera be found notable seperate from Bio Raptor and that Bamburian be found notable on its own merit, from any of the three listed above and seperate from the twenty that follow.  The individual items do not have to be found notable but only the group as a whole, which they are marketed, not seperatly per say, but as part of a series.  As I stated above typicaly I would have just recommended a merge/redirect, but with the amount of information on eaxch and every item, that would distract from the main article.  You are reading to much into the notability guidelines.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, separate toys do need to be notable to be included in that form. They're basically just advertisements in a list format like that. If they are summed up in paragraph form (i.e. only a select few would actually be named), that would be fine. After that, the specific release does need to assert notability. It cannot exist on its own without reliable sources. TTN (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that would point to this being a notable topic or show that it warrants its own article. When there is a lack of reliable secondary sources, it is difficult to keep other editing issues in check, such as neutral point of view and original research, which I see this article appears to suffer from. Articles related to fiction should be governed by both primary and secondary sources and being unable to find the latter, the conclusion I have come to is that this article is not one that should be included in wikipedia. Seraphim  &hearts;  00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Zoids. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Zoids. Pmlineditor    Talk  10:13, 13 September 2009 (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.