Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federated Suns


 * 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   delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Federated Suns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of out of the universe notability. From what I can tell, the references to FanPro are basically fanfiction, non-notable fanfiction in fact, so there's not much worth keeping. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to BattleTech. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - FanPro is also up for AfD for being possibly non-notable. &mdash; kikichugirl  inquire 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't think that was relevant to add. My comment was based on just reading the pages themselves (regarding of the FanPro), namely that it's not information from FASA itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Article is based entirely on primary sources (self-published stuff from inside the fandom), with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a version can be written that actually cites properly reliable source coverage, but it's not entitled to keep a primary sourced advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete- overly long, in-universe plot summary. It is very poorly sourced, and there is no evidence of meeting any of our notability requirements. Reyk  YO!  09:18, 25 December 2014 (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.