Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supersoldier

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 keep. The nomination rationale was primarily an argument against the criteria for inclusion in the list, but as the list has been removed and the article stubbed, this is no longer a rationale to delete. Jasynnash2 concedes that the concept is notable and verifiable, and their argument is thus discounted per WP:DEADLINE. The rationales of both sgeureka and User:Eusebeus seem to be instances of WP:RUBBISH and apply to the pre-stubbed version of the article. A quick search reveals abundant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 02:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersoldier[edit]

Unreferenced with no clear criteria for inclusion other than editors' original research that the entries are both a) soldiers and b) super(ior) in some genetic/performance way at it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete concept is notable and verifiable and therefore should have an article but, this doesn't seem to be the one. I can't help but, wonder as well why it isn't called Super soldier as it really should be two words. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but only pending references. This is a recurring subject in just about all forms of science fiction, and an argument for its notability could be made with further research. Perhaps treating it historically by charting the first usages of the term and concept and its further development? Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject. The current article may lack sufficient sources, but has potential for improvement. Jезка (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is always room for improvement. People should add ideas, references and sources in the future. In time, this page should be up to "standards". -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concept is certainly notable, just needs some rewriting. (and splitting off the major X-Files arc) 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable and recurring concept in modern fiction. JuJube (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or stubbify (i.e. dabbify) While the concept may have some notability, this article is just bad. I arbitrarily checked what the article had to say about Stargate (since the Kull Warriors were also called "Super soldiers" in that show), and of the three Stargate entries, two are pure OR, as is the Blade Runner mention. It may be better to begin new than to cleanup what's there, since everything is unsourced and potentially OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk heap of unencyclopedic WP:OR, with healthy doeses of WP:TRIVIA thrown in for good measure. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and encyclopedic subject. I note that the term is used and linked in hundreds of other articles and deletion will leave the readers wondering the meaning of the concept (also failing to fully comprehend many other fiction articles on Wikipedia.) --PeaceNT (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely notable and important enough of a subject to retain an article. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 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.