Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank (2nd nomination)

Mammoth Tank

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank
• Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank (2nd nomination)

Mammoth Tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Violates wikipedia's policy on notability, particularly the general notability guideline that calls for coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. Mammoth Tank has not received coverage outside of Command and Conquer, and should thus be deleted. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per several policies. For extensive argumentation, see User:Krator/Gamecruft. User:Krator (t c) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to CnC Wiki (at http://cnc.wikia.com ) SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Without any reliable sources the article is original research. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per existence of numerous reliable sources that even demonstrate that real world models have been made beyond the appearance in the games, which means the game guidelines alone cannot suffice in this case, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good argument, it is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or a specialized encyclopedia on toys/models or a specialized encyclopedia on fictional weapons, etc. Our reader are clearly interested in this article. In order to reach a real consensus, I encourage these editors to be notified of this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Models and action figures aren't independent of the subject and don't meet the general notability guideline. This is a non-notable topic until someone can prove otherwise. Randomran (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Models and action figures are indeed independent and reflect a degree of notability (not all tanks in games are made into real world objects) and thus notability has been proven. Saying it's not notable at this point would be akin to saying a banana is an apple. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No they're not because they're not secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are, because they are covered in secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is there any opinion in there? Please see WP:PSTS. "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." Primary sources include artistic and fictional works. Action figures are NOT a primary source. Please stop ignoring policy. If you want to make the case that this is a situation where we should ignore all rules, please do that. But don't simply make up rules. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)