Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles


 * 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 G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. There is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but it has also correctly been pointed out that there is a valid redirect target for the title. The need to delete the article history when the title can be used as a redirect with the history intact is frankly ill-defined in policy, but is most substantial where there have been shenanigans at that title (restoration of previously deleted content, introduction of libelous material, etc.). I am seeing no reason in this case why the edit history of the page must be deleted, and there is a reasonable argument that some editor may find some use for content in the article's edit history. Of course, if this edit history is abused by restoration of the content at this title without consensus, then the edit history can readily be deleted at that time. BD2412 T 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOG. While Bellomo in the sources does appear to be reliable and independent, Bellomo is referring to each of the specific toys themselves. However, there seems to not be sources that discuss the group of vehicles themselves, unlike how the characters list actually has sources exist that describe it. I image that this AFD will be flooded with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes, but before you !vote keep; think "Are there actually sources referring to this collection as a unit, or are all of the sources things that wouldn't contribute to WP:LISTN"? Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is essentially just a toy catalog, and I would say falls into the territory of WP:NOT. Additionally, its entirely reliant on a single reliable, independent source, the Bellomo book.  (It also cites the Santelmo book for a few entries, but assuming the title is not lying about being an official licensed book, it would not be independent.)  The overall concept of the vehicles in the toy lines is already sufficiently covered at G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, and this overly-detailed mass of cruft does not need to be preserved as part of that coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Cruft" is a code word for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The "already sufficient" coverage that Rorshacma points out in the G.I. Joe article is two sentences long. That may be sufficient for someone who doesn't care about the history of action figures in general or G.I. Joe in particular, but it's not sufficient for the readers who are interested in the subject and want more detail. I don't own the Bellomo book, but I've read similar toyline books and they always discuss "G.I. Joe vehicles" in general as well as each one in specific. Furthermore, I dislike the practice of deleting and merging individual pages into a massive list, and then nominating the list page for deletion. Like every list page (and most Wikipedia articles in general), this article needs more editing. Editors who want to improve the article should cut unnecessary details, and add more summary and analysis. That improvement will not happen if the page is deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage of the vehicle lines at the main article is considerably more than two sentences, as it is spread throughout the entire section. For example, near the top of that section it discusses how the initial set of vehicles was influenced by contemporary military technologies with examples.  Later on in that section, it discusses how in 1983-1985, the vehicle sets became larger and more detailed, again with a specific example.  Further on, it talks about how decreasing sales later in the decade resulted in them focusing on releasing more figures and decreasing the number of vehicles. Etc, etc.  As in, all of the real-world information and notability of the vehicles in the various toy lines over the years, instead of ridiculous details on every single released toy.  Furthermore, my description of the content here as cruft was not my actual argument for deletion.  Rather the fact that it falls under WP:NOT and relies entirely on a single independent source were.  Also, I might add, its a bit ironic to criticize someone as presenting an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, and then immediately follow that with an WP:ITSINTERESTING claim.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero per above comments, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. If there is too much detail, the list can always be trimmed. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTCATALOG ur example. There are other places this can go.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rorshacma. The section at G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero already covers this topic sufficiently, there is no reason to have this massive cruft-y list of toys that violates WP:NOTCATALOG and fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. I think there's a less compelling argument for keeping a comprehensive list of these than there is for the characters (those made into action figures), but outright deletion is unnecessary, and would hinder even the possibility of further development by blocking anyone without an admin card from viewing the history (and would also be contrary to policy given the less harsh option of redirection). postdlf (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect- I agree with most above that this is content not suitable for an encyclopedia, being pretty much just a toy catalogue, and I am unconvinced that these problems can be fixed by just editing the article. None of the content would improve the proposed target. Reyk YO! 10:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies; Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue. Such content is better suited to fan wikis.  Sandstein   07:12, 20 June 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.