Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elemental (BattleTech)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental (BattleTech)[edit]

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

Each of the above articles fail WP:FICT (yes, to clarify, I understand that's only an essay - they fail the GNG, and, being articles on fiction, focus solely on in-universe details without looking outwards) - no out-of-universe sourcing, and I can't find any indication that the subjects are notable outside their universe. Looks like fancruft to me. m.o.p 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —m.o.p 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete units, weak keep "elemental" The individual units are not subject to enough 3rd party comment. Yes they show up in a lot of books, for reasons that doesn't indicate overall notability see my essay "sources should be out of universe". Elementals are a part of the fictional technology and have more import, because they are a reletively early example of hardsuits/powered armor/trooper suits/ect., they could be merged there or kept, or merged to a list of battletechnologies. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied all of these articles previously to http://battletech.wikia.com/ where anyone who wants to find the information, can do so. Dream Focus 19:13, 20 August 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke Elemental to a stub or delete, Delete all of the others There's little or no encyclopedic content to worry about losing. These "articles" are basically the owners manuals / how to play instructions on these products. No real references, no indication of WP:notability, although it might be establishable for Elemental. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication of real-world notability as established through coverage in third-party reliable sources. Sandstein 05:04, 1 September 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.