Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exsphere

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exsphere

Delete - non-notable piece of fictional technology, insufficient to justify its own article. I don't know enough about the game to know if it's worth merging any of the content or not. Otto4711 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About 6,720 Google hits. Big top 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tales of Symphonia since the Exspheres play a big part in the game. TJ Spyke 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many scores of articles at WP on games, fictional technologies, fictional characters. Seems to me the only justification being offered for the "non-notable" tag is the fictional nature of exspheres. On this basis many, many articles would have to be culled, to be consistent. If that is the agenda then it should be discussed at the WP:VP. This article should be properly categorised and improved. And kept. Paul Beardsell 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Pokemon defense. If there are other articles you believe should be deleted for notability issues, then nominate them. Don't hold them up as proof that this article is somehow notable. Exspheres have not been the topic of multiple independent sources as required by WP:NOTE. Otto4711 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any independent sources in which this was the primary subject. Edison 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would need to see a non-fictional secondary source (ie. one that relates the subject to this universe as a creative concept) to sway me. --maclean 06:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. I also believe that this topic can be jusdged using the criteria layed out in WP:SCIENCE, and it does not satisfy a single point presented there. TSO1D 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tales of Symphonia ::mikm t 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Xiner (talk, email) 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one source makes it useless. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete — there appears to be significant material here, so it should be merged back into the article where this object appears. After that, this article should be deleted. If, after a week after this discussion is closed the information hasn't been merged, delete this article anyway. Val42 05:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually merged information cannont be deleted. --65.95.16.65 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is this: Whatever useful information there may be in this article, merge into Tales of Symphonia. Then delete this article. But this duty should be the responsibility of whomever is interested in keeping this information. Val42 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tales of Symphonia. Significant importance to the game. Xenon Zaleo 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The information is certainly important in it's own context, even if it's not enough to warrant it's own article. SAMAS 13:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or *Merge. Anyone who says otherwise is a terrible person.

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.