Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powered exoskeletons in fiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 Powered exoskeleton. After looking over the discussion, it appears the consensus is that the topic does not deserve an independent article, as no one was able to adequetly refute what was best summarized in ScottyWong's post. However, I am not deleting the article, as I believe there may be some material that can be merged back into Powered exoskeleton. NW (Talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Powered exoskeletons in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a huge list of trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the list The top portion is an article, the giant list should be elsewhere. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge
Delete. Without a reliable source to establish notability of the topic, this is original research from primary sources. There's nothing to suggest that any secondary sources have found this topic (as opposed to the individual books, authors, and even characters) notable. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Per sources found by Cenarium, below, the information is sourceable, but the list is still trivia. What remains after removing the list should be merged to Powered exoskeleton. There's not enough for a separate article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable topic, furthermore of established real life significance. It is the subject of a five-page article by Popular Mechanics, a reputed journal that is specialized in tech and science, so it's a source amply reliable for this SF topic, and secondary enough (ie it's not an average gaming or SF site). The notability of this topic is further demonstrated by its palpable influence in the real world, indeed fictional exoskeletons and variants are widely credited for having initiated the development of powered armors, refs: NYT, RIA Novosti, AP. There are enough reliably sourceable material for a standalone article. Trivia can be removed. Cenarium (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are helpful sources. The article consists mostly of trivia, though; the remainder would fit into the relevant section of Powered exoskeleton, surely. If the list stays, clearly this article has to be separated from the parent, but if the list goes, do you see any reason why this couldn't be merged back into the main article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge back is a possibility, although that would be an editorial, talk page, question. Cenarium (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; though I think a merge vote is a reasonable one here, I agree that a talk page discussion is the best venue. Guidance from this AfD would be helpful, though. I'm changing my !vote to "merge". Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge back is a possibility, although that would be an editorial, talk page, question. Cenarium (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are helpful sources. The article consists mostly of trivia, though; the remainder would fit into the relevant section of Powered exoskeleton, surely. If the list stays, clearly this article has to be separated from the parent, but if the list goes, do you see any reason why this couldn't be merged back into the main article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep this needs a significant rewrite, I am going to nominate it for the Article rescue squadron, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is not "trivia" to list all notable fictional series which have had a powered exoskeleton. Gets coverage as well. Dream Focus 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: (largely unsourced) unencyclopaedic, largely 'in-universe', 'laundry list' of appearances of powered exoskeletons (and in the case of the 'Skinsuits' section, other suits) in fictional works. No third party content to establish notability or give encyclopaedic discussion of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confabulate 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete laundry list of trivia. Various bits of info can be sourced, but there's no indication that the notability of the topic itself has been established. Merge any sourced info to Powered exoskeleton before deleting. A redirect doesn't seem necessary in this case. SnottyWong confabulate 19:31, 31 January 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.