Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMS-05 Agg

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. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EMS-05 Agg

EMS-05 Agg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Irrelevant. All or nothing is not a valid argument, no matter how many discussions you paste it into. I actually do feel the same about those articles, people can go to Wookiepedia if they want to see that stuff, people can go to Gundam Wiki if they want to see this stuff. In some cases the fictional information is very well presented, but that still doesn't make it encyclopedia material. Zaku kai 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above.--Folantin 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all existing articles in this series. ~ Flameviper 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fancruft and OR. One Night In Hackney 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pak21 and Moreschi. --maclean 07:07, 16 January 2007 (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.