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.  Sandstein  21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms in Miami Vice[edit]

Firearms in Miami Vice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Excessive and unnecessary detail on a single element of a fictional series. The various guns used during the television series is not a notable element, nor something that needs to be its own stand alone article. At best, mention in the individual character articles where they are notable enough to have their own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major plot element. My assertion that they are is backed by the 3 outside refs available, including an actual article about the general topic in an appropriate 3rd party source, Soldier of Fortune. By even the standards of those who do not like these articles, it passes. DGG (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only a very small part of the article is sourced by that, just a few sentences, which could easily be moved to the main article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination is implicitly arguing for merger and so the matter does not belong here. In any case, the article seems quite well researched and presented and so deletion is doubly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, I'm arguing for deletion. My response to DCG was to argue that if he felt those three sentences were relevant, they could be moved to another article. I personally don't think any of it needs to be kept. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per User:DGG. Second of all if you look at the Talk:Miami Vice page you will notice a discussion about the Firearms section being split into a seperate article rather than including all that information there. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure trivia, and already covered in main article. Redirect to Miami Vice#Firearms, and don't merge. --Phirazo 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Four outside sources is trivia? Just so you know, Bren ten became famous because of Miami Vice. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The holster and Don Johnson's gun are covered in the main article. The rest is trivia. --Phirazo 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Galco International and Bren ten are two seperate entities. Don Johnson made Galco famous, but Miami Vice made Bren ten famous. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both entitities are covered in sufficient detail in Miami Vice. I don't see the need for a seperate article when those are the only things notable about Firearms in Miami Vice. --Phirazo 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, so two lines in the Miami Vice article are sufficient coverage? _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable topic per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per most of the keep votes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is too long for the main article, but some wikification and merging of short paragraphs is needed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:56, 22 June 2008 (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.