BattleMech : Almost unreferenced, this is just a mix of BattleTech history + plot summary, and should be redirected to BattleTech just like BattleTech (fictional setting) was (that said, that article was boldly redirected (with some merge) without discussion by User:BalinKingOfMoria so we might as well have formal AfD for that remainder to sanction both redirects).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Games .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above.  Too much information, and none of it of any interest to most people.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 16:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to BattleTech : A good WP:ATD-R per the nom.   Doesn't appear to be any RS information that needs to be merged.  -- 2pou ( talk ) 18:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I also support the bold redirection mentioned in the nomination.  - 2pou ( talk ) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep [28] has quite a few paragraphs describing BattleMechs (see "KNOW YOUR ROLE").  [29] is all about a single BattleMech.  [30] has a fair bit of coverage (at least 1 page) with quotes like "Battlemechs are capable of movement called torso-twisting..." and details about overheating etc.  [31] , 2nd book in that series, has similar coverage.  All are independent, reliable sources.  Hobit ( talk ) 18:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is just a game guide.  WP:NOTGUIDE and game-guides how to pilot a BattleMech or use them in games do not help us much.  Then we have a plot summary, a passing mentoion, and a passing mention, all related to the video game.  I am not impressed by these sources, sorry.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the first source: GAMEGUIDE doesn't disallow the use of sources that are gameguides, it tells us to not write a gameguide.   And in this case the source describes, in great detail, the topic in the context of a specific game.   The second is about a specific BattleMech, which is a lot of plot, but it can give as a sentence or two about the largest of its kind, which seems useful.   The third and forth are a few paragraphs--that's a lot more than is typically a "passing mention" and they cover details like how the Mechs move and why that makes using them effectively difficult, something that belongs in an article like this.   All are reliable, independent, secondary sources.  The first covers the topic in detail, the second covers a narrow subset of the topic in significant detail, and the the last two are significant coverage.   WP:N is met with some margin.   And there is a massive amount of primary sources.   In fact, finding these secondary sources is only difficult because of the massive number of primary ones.   We can write a fine article with what we have.  Hobit ( talk ) 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMHO discussion of how battlemechs move in a specific game (here, MechWarrior 4: Vengeance ) is perhaps relevant to that game but does not help us estabilish notability of the concept of battlemech.  The book's chapter is about the game, helps estabilish the game's notability, but WP:NOTINHERITED .  Its discusion of the game in the context of some interface on piloting mecha, or programming their movement, is again not relevant to BattleMech concept, just video game design and perhaps mecha in general.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two points.   #1 Our standard is WP:N.   There can be no doubt that those sources cover the topic of BattleMech in a way that goes beyond "in-passing".   So we've met WP:N.   Secondly BattleMechs are going to be covered in the context of a game--they are part of a game (and fiction), there is no other way to cover them.  Hobit ( talk ) 19:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sorry but I do not see which sources cover this topic in a way that is not in-passing and goes beyond plot summary or gameguide stuff.  Which means that we cannot write encyclopedic article, since per WP:NOT states our articles need to be more than plot summaries or game guides.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting.  This is a fictional topic with games and books.   Dozens of games and books, maybe more than 100.  This topic is the primary focus of those games and books.   None of that causes the topic to meet our inclusion guidelines, though I do find it indicative of a notable topic.   Having multiple sources that are reliable, independent sources is, however, the very definition of notable for Wikipedia.   We have that.   All of these are more than one paragraph.   Some are significantly more than that.   We are over WP:N.   Unless I'm missing something, GAMEGUIDE and NOTPLOT are about how we write the article, they don't restrict sources or add requirements beyond WP:N.   Do you disagree with that?   If so, could you quote which parts you think either cause us to exclude sources or add requirements beyond WP:N?  Hobit ( talk ) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources found by Hobit.  BOZ ( talk ) 18:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per Pou and TheLongTone.  In my opinion we can succinctly cover that in the major article, especially that article is not sourced properly.  Dawid2009 ( talk ) 06:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to generate clarity between keep or redirect .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems fine, I don't see enough worth keeping as a stand-alone article here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to BattleTech#Setting , does not appear to pass WP:GNG as-is.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like we're in DONTLIKEIT land.   No arguments about why the GNG isn't met given the sources listed.   Oyi.  Hobit ( talk ) 04:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hobit : WP:GNG states that ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. " While I agree with the assertion that WP:NOTGUIDE only applies to articles within Wikipedia, not sources, the fact is that WP:INDISCRIMINATE needs to be passed as well.  Simply citing game guides still calls into question the relative cultural significance of the topic.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/redirect The only sources really just cover what they do in game, and don't really provide any critical reception or analysis for a meaningful article.  When you subtract the WP:GAMEGUIDE style coverage, you don't pass the bar for WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect