Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Traction League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anti-Traction League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Sandstein that there is too much duplicate information for a merge. Miniapolis (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - excessive coverage of an in-universe topic lacking real-world notability. Robofish (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT because there's only in-universe information. Needs third-party information about reception, but there isn't any in existence. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.