- 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 no consensus. Valid delete arguments are made that there is very limited real-world coverage of this; and equally-valid points to keep are made that this is not excessive information beyond a valid split of a weighty section from the main article. A merge could reasonably be suggested as a compromise; but given the amount of information provided here that would not be far off a delete. Given the lack of overall support for any of these three options; and the lack of one argument being distinctly stronger than the others; I am pretty confident that no consensus can be pulled from this discussion. I would encourage a merge discussion on the talk page; but this close should not be taken as a binding decision to that end. ~ mazca talk 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BattleTech technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Heavily in-universe article, citing only primary sources. A lack of secondary sources makes it difficult to see how this can be written within WP:WAF guidelines or fulfill WP:V policy. One might be able to gather some citations from reviews in magazines (indeed, I have a lengthy BattleTech feature in G.M. magazine, here) - but as a subject, the fictional technology itself does not have any notability outside of the game (WP:GNG). Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I wouldn't oppose merge and re-direct though. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mostly encyclopedic descriptions of notable fictional elements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge The nom has nailed it well however I also would not be opposed to merging into another related article for it is well written, just isolated. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it should be merged, why are you voting to delete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it cannot stand alone per WP:GNG and WP:V however I have changed my vote to better reflect my sentiment. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support a partial merge of any material that can be attributed to third-party sources in an out-of-universe perspective. The GM feature I have is from 1990 and might be useful for early BattleTech history. I'm not sure how much it focuses on the game technology but I can make it available for those interested. Marasmusine (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it should be merged, why are you voting to delete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Legitimate spinout article to keep main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The compromise solution to fictional elements is combination articles like this. It avoids the two extremes: multiple very small fansite-like articles on individual elements, and inadequate coverage. I have for some time now promoted the deletion and merging of the former individual articles, and, to be frank, i expected to be met in good faith with the retention of the combined ones. There is no consensus that notability outside of a game is required for elements of the game. Attempts to say so have consistently failed. For those above suggesting merge, this is the merged article and the one you should be supporting. The main result of deleting this article will be to prevent the possibility of a compromise consensus. I hope this was not the actual intention. DGG (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think previous mergers should prevent merging further any more than previous splits should prevent splitting further. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DGG has summerized this quite well. The nominator's concerns are best met through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable part of a notable series. Dream Focus 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to BattleTech - I agree with the above comments that these are organization/style problems and do not warrant deletion. However, I've got two main issues with keeping:
- I can't find any reliable, secondary sources that are unaffiliated with WizKids, who own the rights to BattleTech. WizKids bought the intellectual property from the FASA Corporation and licensed Catalyst Game Labs and FanPro to publish content, so I would consider all of them to be primary sources and insufficient to satisfy the GNG.
- Without some real-world context, this is basically a plot summary.
- If this doesn't get addressed by the time this AfD is closed, consider me on the side of the keeps and we can decide what to do on the talk page afterwards. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of third-party sources or real-world notability. In the absence of independent references, this is original research. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2009 (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.