Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronom K-D2


 * 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/merge. Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kronom K-D2

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

This fictional watch does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Undue weight and detail. This gizmo is nothing like Doctor Who's Sonic screwdriver and therefore does not warrant a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many articles categorised as fictional objects in wikipedia that are only notable within the context of their fictional series (novels, gamebooks, movies or computer games). The Kronom K-D2 played a central role in the plots of the novel series, of which individual books of the series are created in wikipedia. Unlike fictional gadgets of James Bond movies which also have their own entries in wikipedia, the Kronom K-D2 made its appearance consistently in each installment of the series, revealing new functions in each story, providing key functions for the protagonists, as well as played a central role in the over-arching storyline : the "overarching" storyline where the heroes and the ultimate villain were equipped with the same "secret weapons". Snowybeagle (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's truly important to the series it can be merged. The parent article is still very short. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about redirect to main article then? I have merged the info, but leave the entry for the fictional object/technology categorisation.  Will this work? Snowybeagle (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research.  There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved.  Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The book series it appears in is not independent. _Mgm|(talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Has no reliable sources whatsoever, other than being a gizmo mentioned in novels by one writer, so fails to demonstrate notability. The article is basically in-universe original research. Edison (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (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.