Deletion of Proton pack (2nd nomination)

Comment: agree with the concerns by Sottolacqua, it fails the  and has |unreliable sources. Darth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: Your argument is . This does not address the article's failure to meet  and lack of references asserting notability. NFL, football, soccer, etc. meet . A prop from a movie that is not independently notable from the movie itself does not meet . Lack of a ''Ghostbusters'' wiki independent of Wikipedia is not criteria for inclusion here. The article is nothing more than ,  observations of the aesthetics of the prop, and a description of the construction of the prop during production of the films. Sottolacqua
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:PLOT||WP:CRUFT)

Comment: a supposed "user interest" is 1) perfectly unquantifiable (to what do you compare it? which tools were used? etc), thus unreliable and unusable in an AfD, and 2) derives from  and thus is completely useless here. An article isn't kept just because undefined "users" updated it, but because it passes the |general notability guideline in that it has a significant coverage in independant third party sources, which is not the case here. You refer to "sources" that don't exist and don't appear on the article...you don't use imaginary "sources" to keep an article. You claim  "arguably become a notable topic", but I don't see any argument in favor of this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails , no real-world coverage, no reliable third party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and fix through regular editing.  Article has existed since 2005 and has seen multiple edits by numerous editors, showing continued contributor interest in the topic. It was kept after an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proton pack|2007 AFD, with the caveat that while the article needed work it had become the center of content disputes... and yes... it still needs work. As Talk:Proton pack#Real-world"|sources are available showing this topic as being referenced in both related and unrelated fields, we have something that has now become part of popular culture. We have it covered in news and books and it would seem the deletion request is based more upon the problems with the article's |curent state, and a need for inclusion of better sources. My thought here is that it is far better to address adressable issues than it is to delete an article on what has arguably become a notable topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY)

Comment: Editors do not need a calculator or ouija board to be able to compare the busy edit historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proton_pack&limit=500&action=history of this article to some of the other Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} en.Wikipedia articles that might have only one or two edits over similar years-long periods. Simply put, editors can look and compare for themselves to see that contributing editors ARE concerned with this article's topic. And "arguably notable" is a reference to those "arguments" being made here toward notability AND Talk:Proton pack#Sources|an offered search which finds the topic as having become part of enduring cinematic history... even leaking over into popular culture. And with respects to those who have opined a delete based upon |current sourcing, that so many available sources have not been used does not mean we automatically delete a notable topic because of that lack, as |notability is dependent upon sources toward a topic being available... and NOT upon their immediate use as citations. The concerns listed in your nomination statement all look to be addressable issues with format and style... issues that can be addressed through regular editiing and do not require deletion. For such issues, we have |means of correction other than deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY||WP:NRVE||WP:ATD)

Comment: MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning is based on  and deliberately ignores . You're gonna have to find something else if you want to convince
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:GNG)