Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BattleMechs

:{{la|List of BattleMechs}} ([{{fullurl:List of BattleMechs|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BattleMechs}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Entirely composed of "game guide" content, no encyclopedic information or references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::Delete - I am a fan of the Mechwarrior series, but this is just a giant list with little value. Some guy (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While the article is in bad shape, it should be cleaned up and improved rather than deleted in my opinion. Also, I'd wish the nomination would be more specific on the Reasons for Deletion. Entirely composed of "game guide" content? Is it? I'm not sure on the "no encyclopedic information" charge either. There are plenty of similar lists on Wikipedia, from Pokemon to the List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters. As for references, the policy page specifically gives "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" as a reason, not the fact that references aren't given. By the way, the references given by the List of Pokemon appear to be just a bunch of games in which the Pokemon appear. So... do I just add a list of BattleTech games to the list? I suppose not. - 88.217.12.165 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::Note: Playing devil's advocate, I think the strongest charge to be leveled at the article would be game-guide content (which falls, more broadly, under the "non-encyclopedic" category). (See also the Zergling AFD for argumentation about such content lists.) Also, for reference, the fact that other similar articles exists is not generally accepted keep rationale for the same reason "Well, he got away with murder!" isn't listened to kindly in police stations. Ourai ^тʃ_с 06:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The list is of value because it goes into greater depth for the series. Also I agree that more specifications need to be pointed out as to why it should be deleted. It does need alot more work and can be improved.Under the guidelines forReasons for Deletion I can't support the possible deletion of this article.Mcelite (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that the list can be greatly improved, yet it's not a valid reason to remove it. In fact it's been of use to me just seconds ago, when I was looking for a list of battlemechs. - 174.3.179.138 (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• 15px Keep — With a new Mechwarrior game currently in development, I can see this list getting a lot of love from Battlemech enthusiasts. And it needs that love:P. I agree with the above comment that there are many other such lists, and I see no reason to single this one out for deletion, provided that it is updated and fixed. (And it is useful. I just used it.) Gopher65_talk 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Gopher65's logic. As is, there might be an AFD argument (i.e. one that goes beyond "it's a big list"). However, an impending new iteration in the series will undoubtedly draw attention - and cleanup - in the near future. Ourai ^тʃ_с 06:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to BattleTech. This appears to be a plot-only summary of a fictional work. If real-world importance is added to the article, I'd be ok with keeping and significantly trimming it down. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Later today I can start doing some digging on getting resources. It should not be difficult to find reliable information on the mechs from microsoft considering how popular the series is still to date.Mcelite (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Other series have lists like this, so why not Battletech? --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

:* The problem isn't that this is a "List of X" from BattleTech in particular. The problem is that this article doesn't explain the real-world influence of each listed mech, or any of them for that matter. There is no threshold for including a mech in the list beyond "a primary souce has published anything whatsoever about it". The existence of similar lists isn't reason to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (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.