Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-frame (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   redirect to Exosquad. There is a clear consensus here that the subject doesn't warrant a standalone article. I'll leave the history intact in case someone thinks there's anything here worth merging. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

E-frame
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of direct and detailed coverage to WP:verify notability, as required by the general notability guideline. This is basically a list of in-universe specs on fictional robots, held together by a barely-related quote where two corporations were arguing about who should pay costs, with the actual lawsuit about the toys being completely insignificant. Lawsuit doesn't address the toys directly in detail because it's not really about the toys, and even if it did it would be just one source that doesn't justify a comprehensive article listing every toy in the lawsuit. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is basically just retelling the fictional details of the series. Better on a fan site since it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Even if it had sources it would still be too much in-universe detail. There seem to be other articles related to the series with the same status. Borock (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Exosquad and be done with it. --Koveras ☭ 08:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Far too in-universe. There's no indication that coverage of such universe-only detail is in any way notable, or covered by the necessary secondary sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect, I would be inclined to merge or redirect ro the suggested above, because there are numerous links to this page, and those links should go somewhere. Also, the information is accurate and cited, if not notable, so no need to delete where the information can be merged into a more notable topic. Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (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.