This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 March 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.S.S.[edit]

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

All the references in this article are to a fansite. No evidence that this is notable. Divebomb (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't make sense. The 'fansite' isn't just someone saying 'G.I.Joe is cool'. Much evidence exists. Lots42 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fansite is a fansite is a fansite. --Divebomb (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites don't establish notability. Tfu.info and Seibertron.com don't establish notability for Transformers characters, I think the same would apply to G.I. Joe fansites. Since the site mainly covers G.I. Joe stuff, it's not very third-party, even if Hasbro isn't directly involved with it. (Coincidentally, I'm also someone who goes by a username that's some word with four letters directly followed by the number 42 with no space in between", but not on this site.)NotARealWord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Lots42 has done lots of work with this one in the past, and this one has potential. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Somebody worked hard on the article" may not be a very good "keep" argument. But "the article has potential" might work. NotARealWord (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For background, community consensus according to this and this is to keep articles on G.I. Joe characters. Vehicles have not been discussed, but this particle one at least is notable per G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide pg. 119-120. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to create that page, and merge the content after the AfD has been resolved. Even if the article does get deleted, they can get it's page history back via WP:REFUND and make the article redirect to said list. NotARealWord (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources prove it exists, but fail to indicate notability. No notability, no page. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no such sources in evidence. Sandstein 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources are added. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Sgeureka's idea sounds good. Yes, someone has to do it... the closing admin perhaps? ;) --hkr Laozi speak 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to merge into a vehicle list, no cultural notability and no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show notability with sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (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.