Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolo (tank)


 * 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. A consensus has emerged that the article should be kept, but revised with a focus on "reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories."  Malinaccier ( talk ) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Bolo (tank)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be pretty much entirely in-universe content that violates WP:NOTPLOT with no indication of wider cultural significance. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It could be refactored as an article about the series of books and appearances in other books. But 80% of the content is fancruft and would still need to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to give a revised opinion of keep or delete? Right now your statement amounts to WP:MUSTBESOURCES but I couldn't find any that would allow for a revising of the article that weren't WP:PRIMARY or not significant.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is quite popular, getting about 100 views per day. That's because this has developed from the original Laumer stories to become a substantial shared universe with stories by numerous established authors and with a variety of spinoffs such as board and computer games.  Because it has grown beyond the work of the original author, it makes sense to keep this as a separate page rather than merging it into the author's page.  As for notability, it's not difficult to find sources if one looks, e.g. A Guide to Popular Reading Interests.   An additional consideration now is the fresh fears about the dangers of AI and military robots as unmanned drones and tanks are becoming real.  Reference is typically made to fictional foresight in titles such as Well-Behaved Borgs, Bolos, and Berserkers and we ought to be able to explain these to readers who can't place the reference. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bolos get a single passing mention in one sentence in the intro in Well-Behaved Borges, Bolos and Berserkers. Out of 9 pages. that's not sufficient for notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And the guide to popular reading seems to be just a listing of themes and books with a brief note describing the subject in each case, the Bolo series is outlined in a couple of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POPULARPAGE is not a sufficient rationale. Your other argument is WP:SOURCESEARCH, but what matters is whether it has more than WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. If one seeks to find information about unmanned drones, they should refer to military robot, not this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POPULARPAGE states that "article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability" and it's easy to find more sources. For example, here's an extensive review of the series.  My !vote stands and based upon multiple policies including WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * a) not really an extensive review, b) a blog by unnamed contributed. There must be more sources higher on RS scale for this series out there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that you claimed it was a popular page, which I said was not an adequate rationale. I think that, objectively, it's not actually a popular page. 100 hits is pretty small, most popular pages on Wikipedia get thousands of hits a day. So if you're using comparisons of statistics to say it proves notability exists somewhere, then, well, it doesn't really prove much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Recurring SF element and the basis of a shared world used by multiple authors. Artw (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that there is absolutely room for cutting a lot of cruft from this article, and reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories. It's still a keep though. Artw (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, since it's been picked up by writers other than Laumer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:INHERITED, even if it appears in other books, it doesn't gain notability from those books.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the article should be re-targeted to be about a series of books. It currently claims to be a type of fictional vehicle. Power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment That assumes anyone will bother to rewrite the article to conform to the book series rather than the tank. Better to use WP:TNT and wait for someone to write a suitable article on the books.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Several users appear to be engaged in good faith efforts to improve the article without the use of TNT. Artw (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I reckon there's about 50% more of the article to be excised yet. TNT would be cleaner. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2017 (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.