Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ED-209


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ED-209

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage regarding real world notability to pass gng.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A quick google of "ED-209" returns 667 million results. I have added a substantial and well sourced development section to the article as is, and it can be improved, though I am not taking personal responsibility for that. The figure is clearly notable, and a lack of immediate sources is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for adding an "improve article" tag. When every single nobody character in The Office, like whoever this guy is has an article, to focus and/or claim that ED-209 is unnotable is ridiculous. Even if you haven't seen RoboCop, you will have seen it referenced somewhere. Subject is unquestionably notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that Pete Miller article hasn't been tested at AFD (I would argue it fails; strip out the plot summary stuff and you're left with a paper thin reception section that may barely meet GNG). --M asem (t) 17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, ED-209 is known in popular culture, and yet has tagged this article for deletion a day after I added a big chunk of info to it and just sourcing those cultural references alone would evidence notability and impact. No time has been given to improve the article, and this is not an acceptable avenue to pursue when there are genuinely unnotable articles all over the place on here that I have tried to delete in the past to no avail, including The Office characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to RoboCop (which I think already includes most of the sources, salient development information). Rest is mostly trivia and without any "reception" section, fails the typical requirements for a standalone character article. --M asem (t) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are not present in the franchise article, and it's not the right article to be talking about the in-depth development or cultural reception of a secondary character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge. Fails GNG/NFICTION for a stand-alone. The development section can be merged per Masem. The only other section that may have some usefulness (not being WP:FANCRUFT) is 'Cultural impact' and it has no references. I am mildly surprised we have no List of RoboCop characters to redirect this to, however. The odds are such a list would be fine per WP:NLIST, and then this could be just softdeleted by redirecting it there. Right now, however, I guess the only valid target for preserving this as a redirect would be the movie it appeared in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Really lazy WP:SURMOUNTABLE deletion rationale by Onel that can be easily refuted with WP:RS. ED-209 has a section in The American Body in Context: An Anthology (2001), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television (2008), and surprisingly, Gender and Democratic Sentiment: United States Political Culture in the Early Republican Period (1993). It has countless news article mentions such as this one. It's clear that no WP:BEFORE was ever performed. Individually notable and one of the best-known film robots.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for the amount of the parodies this character alone has received in popular media, indicating a lot of his notability isn't inherited from the film's. That plus the reception and the making of his design for the first RoboCop film makes this a worthy stand-a-lone article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am reminded of a recent incident with the ImageTaggingBot but that's enough about me. The bot in question is clearly up there with the Terminator as an icon.  When Elon Musk and other Tony Stark types warn of the dangers of these things becoming real, ED-209 is chosen to head up the open letter.  As for in-depth coverage, that's just a matter of looking – see the Village Voice, for example – The Movies’ Greatest Badass Robot.  And it turns out that Kevin Page really suffered for his art but now collects models of it.  And, yes, those models do count as notability.  I'm liking this one which is a useful reminder that,  while Google is always listening, it usually doesn't understand what's being said. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons cited above show WP:GNG.  As to this nomination, YGBSM.  No compliance with WP:Before.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia reference search button at the top reveals plenty of coverage. https://www.villagevoice.com/2014/02/11/the-1987-robocops-ed-209-the-movies-greatest-badass-robot/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2012/jul/09/robocop-remake-ed209-viral-video  D r e a m Focus  15:03, 19 February 2021 (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.