Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sniper Joe


 * 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. Renata 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sniper Joe

 * — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, unsourced, unsourceable. This is pure trivia about an exceedingly minor enemy (not even a character) appearing in a series of games, and it's sourced to direct observation of the games.

I prodded this, but it was apparently deprodded because I didn't put my prod reason in the edit summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got yer counter-proof right here, baby! Page 86 Japanese guidebook called Rockman & Rockman X Great Encyclopedia(JP ISBN4-06-259006-9).  Inside, it has information about a great multitude of enemies from both games...including...the Sniper Joes!  What do you have to say about that, Black Man? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per notability, article quality. Just because something isn't good now doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. Sharkface217 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is notable, where is it noted outside of primary sources or fansites? "Unsourceable" and "trivial" aren't problems that can be fixed with cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as, despite the fact that the Joe series are a minon enemy(..."exceedingly"? No, that would be one-shot enemies like Pierobots or Cutting Wheels.) in all of the games(and I do mean all of them.  In the Classic series, in any case.), there are a great deal of them.  An article about one single Joe isn't enough to bother with...but one large article about all the different types of Joes seems interesting.  Now, on the other hand, the interest may be limited to only those who have played the games or plan to play the games, but still.  You'd be surprised how many Rockman/Mega Man fans there are on Wikipedia.
 * On an unrelated note...yes. I deleted your previous "prod".  Thank you for linking your nomination for deletion to an actual discussion forum, Black.  I will try to find someone who has a copy of Rockman Perfect Memories or that Rockman and Rockman X guide for proof if that's all you require.
 * Oh, and if you're gonna recommend this for deletion, don't forget to set your magnum's sights on the Met page... ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep a signature enemy of the Mega Man series. Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this enemy doesn't complete satisfy my personal standards for notability, I recognize that this will probably be used as future precedent for every Mega Man enemy article (Met (Mega Man), etc), so I'm voting keep. Yes, it's not a valid reason. I don't care. --- RockMFR 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs a hell of a lot of cleaning up, but it's workable in its current state.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Primary sources (such as games) cannot reasonably be considered to fulfil verifiability requirements when using them to verify an article would require skill at playing the game in question, so the absence of reliable secondary sources is a serious issue here, and the mere fact that Mega Man fans consider this article interesting cannot be allowed to offset the requirement to meet Wikipedia's fundamental policies. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability, nice article.  TestPilot  20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but relist if not cited more thoroughly soon. -Ryanbomber 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A thorough article on a main, recurring enemy in a major video game franchise. -Timzor 01:31, 10 December 2006 (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.