Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-frame


 * 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 or merge. Since the result cannot in any way conceived as "delete," talk page discussion on the issue of merging is encouraged.  kur  ykh   23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

E-frame

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Exosquad through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the Origins section into Exosquad, then delete. --Koveras ☭ 10:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect the origins section. Please note that deletion would remove the edit history of the article being merged, which is not a good idea. WP:MERGE has always said that a merge should be followed up by a redirect. If there's a good reason to keep the article title empty it can be moved to the target article talk space first. - Mgm|(talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not much here worth merging. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Mizu   onna   sango15  Hello!  23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Doing the echo chamber routine, as per Koveras and MGM. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect for reasons listed above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep or merge intact The content has already been merged into this combination article, which is the right level of detail, and the way to deal with topics like this. It could possibly be merged, but if so it should be merged intact, as it seems everything here is verifiable from the primary sources, and relevant to the series--and those are the only requirements for content of an article. I can see disagreements about where we should separate articles--this is not a matter than can be rigidly prescribed; but I can so no reason why we should remove sourceable content--all that's needed is to specifically state where in the series the details come from.   DGG (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TTN basically summed it up. Themfromspace (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per, i.e. part of indiscriminate mass nomination. No legitimate reason presented as to why we would not at worst merge and redirect.  The toy seems to have been part of a lawsuit (see  and .  Clearly not a hoax, per Amazon.com, so something that is verifiable and has some notoriety needs to be kept in some capacity.  No reason presented for redlinking, although a case could be made for a merge or redirect which should be discussed in an appropriate venue.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that TTN has been mass-nominating articles for deletion, but the sad truth is that most of these articles deserve to go: they are crufty, unsourced, and hurt Wikipedia's credibility as a real encyclopedia. Besides, his nomination was spot-on.  You said that this content is verifiable, but beyond that it has to be notable, per Wikipedia's policies, to be included.  This means that (as TTN said) the subject of the article has to have had significant coverage by independant, reliable sources.  The subject of this article hasn't, and until it has it fails the notability guidelines and shouldn't be in the encylcopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion and these indiscriminate and inaccurate mass nominations actually turn away editors and readers. These articles can be sourced as I was able to find out relatively quickly and the fact that these toys are sold by major retailers, appear not simply as toys, but also in an animated series and even in a video game, and have been the subject of a law suit covered in at least one published book, i.e. a reliable secondary source as well as in multiple Google News hits indicates that it meets our notability standards and should be included in the paperless encyclopedia.  A case can be made for merging and redirecting this content, which is welcome on the article's talk page, but there really is no reason for redlinking in this case.  See for example page 1339 of West's federal supplement. [First Series.]  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT comes from an essay. While it isn't a strong argument in itself, tacked onto an article suffering from severe notability issues it seals the deal for deletion.  Notability isn't about fame, importance, or popularity.  It is about in-depth discussion of the subject matter in reliable sources.  Trivial mentions in varying genres do not make an article pass WP:N.  Fictional objects must pass the notability test in the real world and this subject doesn't come close. Themfromspace (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not really in question here as pertains to our policies and guidelines. You can hold these toys in the real world, play video games that include them and watch televsion shows that depict them.  These realities coupled with the fact that they are mentioned in a real world court case covered in multiple reliable secondary sources makes them pass our notability tests with flying colors, which is why the nomination is horribly inaccurate.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't understand the notability guidelines.? You may be confusing the concept of notability with that of verifiability. If you reread WP:N you'll see it say that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and the guidelines go on to define exactly what "significant coverage", "reliable", "sources", "independant of the subject", and "presumed" all mean.  You see, just because something exists and can be verified, doesn't mean it gets a free ride on the notability requirement. Themfromspace (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this topic has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, it is notable as has been pointed out. Moreover, The article is consistent with Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, and consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world).  Thus, the article meets both our verifiability and reliability guidelines.  If you would like to compromise and argue for a merge and redirect, then I would happily meet that middle ground, but clearly there is no compelling need to redlink this article at this time as it unequivocally has potential to either be developed as a stand alone or at least as part of another article.  Plus, because these aspects of a fictional franchise have appearances in various media (video game, toys, and television show), the article also serves a navigational function to other articles.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to argue for a merge of the Origins section, if it contained a few citations. Themfromspace (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll see what I can find (note: I might resume searching tomorrow as I'm kind of feeling a bit out of it now and somewhat need to lie down or eat something). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and source a bit better, its to large for merging. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all relevant date to parent article. These "weapons" aren't notable outside of the series. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per TTN clause. Jtrainor (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep. Please summarize it before merging. It's too long. --Mark Chung (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The lawsuit is sufficient to establish real-world notability. Could use more sources though. Raitchison (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.