Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximillion (fictional dog)


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maximillion (fictional dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

no reliable sources establish the notability of this fictional animal. The article fails WP:GNG and, as a mere report of the dog's appearances on the series, fails WP:PLOT. The cited sources consist of a user message board at Yahoo!, a page that appears to be soft-core superheroine porn and a non-existent Amazon page. Many sources note the existence of this character but none significantly cover it beyond the WP:PLOT-violating descriptions of episode contents. The character is already covered in The Bionic Woman and the article's name is a highly implausible search term, so there is no need for either a merge or a redirect. PROD declined by an editor who habitually declines PRODs for fictional subjects at the rate of three or more per minute. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I really can't add anything to Cow of Pain's excellent nomination. Blind Freddie and his bionically enhanced dog can see that this is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Reyk  YO!  23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rarely are fictional animals notable (obvious example being Lassie), but typically that's when there is an entire show built around them. This is an ancillary "character" which does not have any significant coverage by third-party sources.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   squeal 22:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by anonymous IP 32.175.56.28 in seeking assistance with its improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG.    Snotty Wong   squeal 22:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG - no significant out-of-universe coverage. Claritas § 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but spell the dogs name properly.  shows a news paper published an article about him.  Many other Google news hits are available as well.    D r e a m Focus  07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first hit is nothing but a partial recounting of the plot of the episode in which the character is introduced. Well over 75% of the other Google News hits have nothing to do with the dog and are instead related to actor Maximillian Schell. The rest appear to be "What's on TV tonight" listings that simply note the appearance of the character and are not significantly about the character. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article I linked to is all about the dog. I can't read any of the rest without a paid subscription, so I have no idea what they say.   D r e a m Focus  08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article you linked to has four paragraphs about the episode in which the dog first appears, eight paragraphs about Phil Donahue, one paragraph about the 1977 Miss America pageant and one paragraph about funny things sports announcers say. If you can't read the other articles then you can't reasonably assert that they are about the fictional dog. Given that the word immediately following "Maximilian" in almost all of them is "Schell" the only logical inference is that they are referring to the actor of that name and not the fictional dog. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its about the dog, ample coverage, not the episode. Other opinions please.  Does Bionic Dog Max Unleashed by NBC clearly count as notable coverage?   D r e a m Focus  17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have to agree that that article is nothing but a recounting of the plot in which the dog first appears. It doens't contain any professional opinion about the "character", if you will, just says what happens in the episode. That isn't true coverage, and certainly not significant coverage as is required by the GNG.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unable to WP:verify notability Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as editor DreamFocus has ably demonstrated, dedicated coverage specifically about the dog exists to establish noteability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he didn't demonstrate it. What he showed was that a source summarized the plot of the episode the dog appeared in. That isn't coverage for the dog. Just to show, if you change "Bionic Woman" to "bionic dog" (see here) you only get 2 hits, as opposed to the 40 hits you got from Dream's original search which was picking up "Bionic Woman" more than anything. If you look at Dream's original search, all of the Maximilians are Maximilian Schell, you can see that next to ever hit. It's a false identification of "coverage".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's an issue with your browser so you're reading the wrong link? Dreamfocus found an article with out of universe comments on the  subject:  "when ABC put out rumours a season ago that the Bionic Woman ... would be joined by a bionic dog, everyone thought it was a great joke"  as well as assessemet of the character- "he looked for all the world like a splendidly formned German sheapeoard" and general commentary: "his name is Maximillian  - he cost $1 million you see". All boxes ticked! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. It was a single source (operative word being single) that mentioned any remote real world commentary in passing than anything. NBC mentioning the interest in a bionic dog is not coverage of Max the character, and hardly significant coverage. The comment about the splended form is not an assessment of the character, it's of the dog actor they used. It has nothing to do with the character itself. You're really trying to stretch the faintest of comments into something bigger. Please read the WP:GNG's definition of "significant coverage" and you'll notice that it talks about things that are mentioned more in passing than actual coverage of the topic. This article fails the GNG. It has no significanct coverage from third-party sources. It has a couple of passing mentions, and that's it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is entirely about the dog! Here's an example to show how to interpret what WP:GNG means by "passing" - in Dream's article ABC is only mentioned in briefly and only a sentence or two has any focus on the broadcaster, so we couldnt use the source to establish noteability for that company. True, about half the article could be considered a plot summary, but it focuses on the dogs role in the story,  there isnt a single sentence that doesnt make at least an indirect reference to the dog. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Entire article? You're acting like this is some huge article about the dog. It's 4 small paragraphs that just recount what happens in the story. Whether it's about what happens to the dog (given that the episode is about the dog, one would assume that is what they would focus on storywise) or what happens to the Bionic Woman is irrelevant because it's still just recounting the plot of the episode. By definition: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." - That source does not meet that requirement, and rarely would any single source meet that requirement. There is no real commentary on the episode or on the dog, just a recap of what happened. Clearly, the consensus on this page is that that single "article" isn't enough to justify an entire page for this fictional dog. That's all I'm going to say further on the subject. You can try and stretch this one source to be something more, but the fact remains that it isn't anything but an episode recap.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - not to snub Dream's efforts in trying to source the article, but this doesn't meet WP:GNG, and there's very little out-of-universe coverage. Claritas § 18:39, 16 July 2010 (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.