Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resistance (Terminator) (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 merge to Terminator (franchise). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Terminator)[edit]

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

No sources that cover this concept in direct detail which makes it impossible to WP:verify notability of this topic. Reviewed the past no consensus AFD and found that the arguments for keeping it were based on a lot of assumptions about the sources that are mistaken (in good faith). Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terminator (franchise) by creating a fictional universe section. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there are no references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources, the article does meet the criteria of verifiability and notability. The topic itself does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article appears to be original research by synthesis. The article is mainly written with an in-universe perspective with no real-world perspective, it's an unnecessary content fork and consists mostly of a plot-only description of a fictional work, so the article fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both this article and Skynet (Terminator) could be merged into a single section of the Terminator (franchise) article. Serendi ^pod ous 10:36, 14 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment from nominator: I believe the policy reasons are valid for deletion. However, I would support a merge if it would help this discussion reach a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 14 February 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.