Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Transporter


 * 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 Space: 1999. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Eagle Transporter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure WP:FANCRUFT material. This is fine material for a Fan Wiki, but not Wikipedia. Note that the references are to the show itself. The vehicle is not independently notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was a very popular toy back in the 1970s. There's sure to be coverage from the time. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Space:_1999 as it is mentioned there and serves as a valid redirect target. First of all, I find it puzzling that, an admin who I respect a lot, used a combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES all in one (before WP:COMMONSENSE is pulled up, the "Popular" statement is subjective for that to be a common sense either)! Second, I don't see enough evidence like the nominator, that it is independently notable of Space 1999, nor there is any significant coverage of it to be found, making it fail WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're looking for sources online for something from a 1970s TV series that was also a popular toy in the 1970s available as both a Dinky die-cast model and an Airfix kit  (I remember because my brother and some of my friends had it) - it's not surprising you can't find much online, although there's some decent coverage here, which also confirms the popularity of the Dinky model. It's still popular today . I would suggest that a thorough review of 1970s sources would be needed to build the article up as much as is possible. If there is still not enough for a standalone article, a merge might then be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great findings of the book coverage! Sadly, it still does not show how much independently notable it is, and I feel a mini section at design section I proposed a merge to can be expanded properly with this source alone. I would agree with you on thorough review of 1970s sources, which is why opening this AfD was a good thing in my opinion as notabilty requires verifiable evidence. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major feature of a major series. And a toy produced in huge numbers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then surely you can find RS for this? And enough to satisfy notability outside of the series? Why can't you just add a line or two about how there was a toy produced for the main ship in the main Space 1999 article? That would seem to make more sense than an entire article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti</b>*Let's talk!* 01:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as a toy from the 70s, major feature imperative to understanding the series, could be better sourced but passes GNG DrewieStewie (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to find sources to prove it passes GNG. Right now I'm leaning towards merge, as you could cover this as a toy in like 2-3 sentences in the main article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to the Space: 1999 article as a valid search term. <b style="color: #FF0001;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF7F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per above and adding more RS. It appears outside of the TV series. StrayBolt (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Space: 1999 per SuperMarioMan. Aoba47 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on Space: 1999. Spyder212 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on Space: 1999. This topic clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own and a redirect and a few sentences in the main article about the toy being popular will suffice. This isn't a fan website and keep!voters appear to be too wrapped up in fond childhood memories to follow policy. I have great sympathy for them, as I would be upset if "someone" messed with my fond memories too, but that shouldn't guide this AfD. If significant print sources from the 70's are found about the toy at a later time, I would not oppose re-creating the article, which would be easy since nothing is being deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed my vote to Redirect per the above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Space: 1999 per above arguments. The sources on this are woefully inadequately for establishing independent notability.  Many of the ones currently in this article barely talk about the ship, don't even mention the ship by name, or are not about the ship at all.  And there really isn't anything more substantial out there that is sufficiently in-depth to justify this being a separate article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Space: 1999 as a more appropriate target. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 02:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.