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. — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Boss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional character with no third-party significant sources to justify notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP, at this point the editor Black Kite seems to be throwing a hissy fit nominating nominating article left and right that I have edited for disagreeing with him. I think he should be barred from nominating articles until he calms down. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not explained how this nomination meets WP:SK. It would be better if you explained how this character meets WP:N, and demonstrated signficant third-party sources about the character themselves. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need to as the nomination was done in bad faith and should be ended. Tried to remove several images from the page, and when I restored them you nominated the article for deletion as "payback". Your fits are embarising, and you have no place nominating articles for deletion right now until you calm down. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can show me how the character is independently notable and has multiple significant third-party sourcing I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added a review of the toy by toy expert Benson Yee, and a link to a new page froma new service talking about the episode that starred Dirt Boss. Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't understand why this is even being nominated. The article has been around since March 2005 with no complaints until what seems to be a WP:POINTy deletion nomination now. Five references make it clear that there's enough information to keep this page intact. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those references are from Transformers-related sources (i.e. not independent). Therefore none of them meet WP:RS. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this. Are you saying that Wikipedia should only accept sources when the provider doesn't care? Given my recent edits, are you going to exclude the ATP from tennis-related articles? Even if all the sources are fansites, there are still enough of them to make the article noteworthy. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fansites are not reliable sources and it matters not if there are 5,000 of them; these fansites do not help this article pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So even if 5000 different sites have been created by fans, something isn't notable? I'm having great difficulty understanding your reasoning there. I've seen several sites that could be described as fan sites used as references on various topics, because fans are often the ones who have most knowledge on a particular topic. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N is about if the world at large is interested in the subject matter or not, as expressed by people writing about them in reliable sources. The things which are often reliable sources write about them because there is real world interest, that in turn means the book, magazine etc. will sell which is generally the purpose of the publications. If there are 5000 fansites but no one believe there is a market interest to be exploited that doesn't really line up. A more usual situation is that the fansites are going into a level of detail which isn't of general interest, or full of fan made fiction, personal interpretations etc. The publications tend to not cover that unless that has in itself become notable. So yes, if your fictious circumstance exists then it wouldn't be suitable for an article. Generally speaking if fan sites are being used for references then there is a problem. Verifiability is non-negotiable requirement for article content, and that requires reliable sourcing which most fan sites will fail on, they won't be fact checked, the person writing won't be a recognised expert in the field etc.As to fans having the most knowledge, where did they get that knowledge from? If it appeared out of thin air, or is their interpretation of primary sources then that's going to be a problem. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wont !Vote delete, as I disagree with policy on the deletion of articles such as this. That said, the nominating statement appears to be accurate, and the character appears to not be notable, which means this nomination was not made in bad faith. Is there a factual or policy based reason that refutes the nomination and indicates why this article should not be deleted? Monty₈₄₅ 02:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, I added a new page talking about Dirt Boss on the Transformers TV series, and a review from Benson Yee's web site, who is considered a notable toy expert. Mathewignash (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG and WP:V by not having sufficient out-of-universe reliable sources to establish notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Redirect to Transformers(or somewhere else), to preserve the information for a future merge, or if sources are found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I don't 100% agree with Black Kite. It seems to me that Black Kite's view is that the sources aren't independent; but some of them clearly are. The problem is not the independence of the sources, but their reliability, in that I see no evidence of editorial fact-checking to the necessary standards.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to look closely, the sources are just not reliable enough to WP:verify notability. See WP:RS for standards on what constitutes reliable (fact-checking and peer review). Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.