Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Falcon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jet Falcon[edit]
- Jet Falcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, unnecessary plot details, and extremely trivial model details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a list Given there are several hundred of these Zoids figures, we have to do something rational about them. Incidentally, I tend to wonder at delete reasons starting "yet another...", and giving no specifics about the article in question. DGG (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont' wonder about them. There are a staggering number of nominally distinct entities in fiction. A hundred ships of the line in Star Trek. Hundreds of planets in Starship Troopers. Hundreds of Zoids. This manifold complexity is unconstrained by (naturally) what would constrain articles on each as subjects--we require third party coverage, this is certainly not required by the content creators :). Eventually the response will be resignation on the part of participants. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTPAPER. If there were not hundreds, but thousands of each, we could still cover them as long as people will write the articles. And there will be, because if they are created, its because there's an audience--and some of that audience will be writing the articles. DGG (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you would have a higher estimation of my understanding of wikipedia than to spit NOTPAPER back at me. There is no limit to what we may physically have coverage of. However, there is a limit of what is covered in reliable, third party sources. The point about thousands of weapons/mecha was to say that the creator of the work of fiction can churn out new ones at will, but only outside coverage and note allows us to write an article on them. To despair that we have deleted enough of these so that the discussion has become rote is to miss the point. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTPAPER. If there were not hundreds, but thousands of each, we could still cover them as long as people will write the articles. And there will be, because if they are created, its because there's an audience--and some of that audience will be writing the articles. DGG (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing on Gnews. Nothing on Gbooks. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DDG. While I don't think that these should be deleted, I also watched all of the Ace Combat weapons be deleted so.... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:53, 30 October 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.