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. And another, no sources, no notability shown, just existing isn't a reason for a separate article. Black Kite 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Blast[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's ref in there, which is fairly detailed [1], but the site has no clear editorial policy, and no list of staff. Does not look like a reliable source. Pcap ping 05:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oafe.com is not a reliable source [2] Dwanyewest (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced+ Minor character= Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it is merged adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG. Also, the character was seen in various comic books and an episode of a cartoon, it saying "He also makes frequent appearances in the UK comic series by London Editions." By comic book standards, the character is notable enough to exist. Dream Focus 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor mention in an old Washington Post article [3] listing as one of the notable characters children "adored", and who was mentioned in a song apparently. Google book search up top shows eight results. Schroeder's Collectible Toys: Antique to Modern Guide‎ - Page 8 apparently mentions it, but I can't see a Google preview of what all it says. Listed in an Almanac of notable toys. Dream Focus 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails general notability WP:GN

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:Notable. The guidelines are just a suggestion, not a requirement like policies are. Anyone can edit those things without the approval or even notice of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors. "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Common sense to me means that if the Washington Post says that children adored the character, they were notable enough to be mentioned there, featured in the live action show, and in the song sung there, then the character is quite notable. Dream Focus 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and 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. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per lack of coverage in reliable sources. There's only one source, which backs up just one paragraph in this article, and it's not a reliable one. Reyk _YO! 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character. Ridernyc (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity. WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, as the subject is not a hoax nor libelous and as the nominator even points out a valid merge and redirect location exists, that is what we would do. Obviously the name is plausible for editors to have created the article and worked on it and this character was apparently worthy of getting a toy in addition to being on the show. No valid reason exists as to why we would not therefore at worst redirect with edit history intact. Someone can make a reasonable case for such a merging or redirecting, but there is no reasonable case for redlink. "I don't like it" just doesn't cut it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, it is way too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason it is "way too big to merge" is because the unsourced original research has yet to be cut! There is nothing here worth keeping or merging. JBsupreme (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with List of Masters of the Universe characters. Right now it just doesn't look like we have enough reliable sources for a standalone article, but we definitely want to preserve the edit history per A Nobody. The list doesn't have much detail so some information will be lost, but we can definitely expand the single sentence that the list currently contains to a paragraph, and bring in the OAFE review and some of the Google Books results to verify the details of the toy. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:27, 24 February 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.