Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold the Helicopter


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Harold the Helicopter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The character is well-established and covered in the Thomas & Friends Character Encyclopedia and there's plenty more sources to be found such as Experimental Entailments: The Case of Spatial Prepositions and Reproducing “Really Useful” Workers: Children's Television as an Ideological State Apparatus. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentions in passing, effectively one-liner plot summaries, are hardly 'well established and covered'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, Andrew, some of us check those sources, and furthermore verify the ones you put up. You really could stand, while you're quoting essays, to read the actual pertinent guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources.   Ravenswing      15:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the coverage is not indepth enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; full stop. A redirect wouldn't work, per WP:XY.   Ravenswing     15:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or merge and admittedly allowing some special pleading, based on what I'm observing at similar AFDs. I just don't see the sources to support an article like this. The fiction is obviously very notable, and if you could even find a single source, it should be covered somewhere, and probably somewhere else. The List of Thomas & Friends characters is in a sorry state, as are the linked / sub-articles. I suggest a merge because there's a shred of primary sourced material (not independent enough to support notability) that could be WP:PRESERVED at a broader list. If there's a chance at making this better than a fandom wiki, it's to work on a better quality list. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleteas non-notable per nom, without significant 3rd party coverage. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2020 (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.