Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BattleMechs (2nd nomination)

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. Speedy delete G12: The writing style is a giveaway as a copyvio; the fact the source isn't online is the reason it's probably survived. The source is this and similar publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of BattleMechs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of BattleMechs. Completely unsourced and looking around, I cannot find sources (let alone independent sources) describing these individual fictional machines. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example, the first listing is of the Dasher/Fire Moth machines. Excluding the forums of various websites, the BattleTechWiki here gives enough details to be useful (even if it wouldn't be a reliable source). The actual source material are rule expansion books, some sort of game scenario and something called technical readouts. I don't think it's even possible to find 'independent' sources or any sources for this level of detail without doing a massively inappropriate synthesis of it all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Unless it's possible to source all of this to reliable independent sources, there's no reason to keep this. Claritas § 09:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- textbook violation of WP:NOTDIR. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim per the WP:POKEMON precedent. There's no reason for all the technical specs to be here, but a listing of fictional elements is appropriate and preferable to a bazillion individual articles on fictional elements of limited interest. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 166.190.164.207 [1] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is non-notable, in-universe fancruft. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These notable games get reviews, and they always mention the new battlemechs. Cnet's editor review [2] for MechWarrior 3 for instance, states The various BattleMechs featured in Pirate's Moon - which include newly added mech chassis such as the imposing humanoid-shaped Atlas and the devastating Masakari - are all fully articulated and beautifully animated. They look, move, and even sound like the 50-ton tanks that they're supposed to be. If I do a Google news search for BattleMech and the name of one of them, in this case Masakari, I receive more detailed mention of it. [3] You can only read the article summaries though, unless you have a paid subscription to the news archives. Dream Focus 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Just because the games are notable (MechWarrior 3), it doesn't mean that BattleTechs they just mention are automatically notable. All you've gotten from that source is that Atlas is humanoid-shaped and that Masakari is "devastating." There's nowhere near adequate sourcing to write anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other series have lists like this, so why not Battletech? (Like I said last time) --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:55, 13 July 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.

Keep The list is legit. It is of great importance to the series and shows the variation of chassis models that have occurred over the years. There is no serious reason for it to be removed.Mcelite (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]