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 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page spun off from Mecha today. A heady combination of unsourced, unverifiable, essay to which is added more than a hint of crystall ballism and a hearty helping of cruft and original research. There is a slim chance that an article can be salvaged from this trainwreck, so I don't presently have an opinion as to the Right Thing to do here but I'm certainly tempted in the direction of deletion. Make this into a good article and you're sure to win Danny's third contest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancruft per nom. Leibniz 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mecha is awesome and extremely popular. There should be as much information on mecha on Wiki as possible. Article can be cleaned up, and AfD is not cleanup. Billy Blythe 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a heady brew of original research. No refs, is essentially an essay. This will open the door to similar fanciful weapon systems having 'Are they practical' articles as well. --Nydas 18:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR essay. Inappropriate title for an article stubification/rewrite. There is an article to be written about DARPA's Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation project and related research initiatives. There's an existing article on Artificial powered exoskeletons but unfortunately, about 85% of the quite lengthy article is focussed on popular culture and fancruft references. Personally I would ship off all those fan culture references to their own specifically titled pop culture article, and expand the real life research stuff in the exoskeleton article. Also, BLEEX could do with some help too. I'll put it on my to do list Bwithh 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Robocruft. Artw 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the problem itself is genuine enough, but it does need sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I split this material off of the original Mecha page specifically because it was a big ugly mess of unreferenced conjecture that had no place being attached to a page that was otherwise very good. While it might make interesting reading, the fact that it is all conjectural means it belongs on somebody else's website. I would have just deleted it, but for the fact that Mecha fanboys will probably just revert it back to the original mecha page. Jboyler 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As things stand, the vast bulk of this article is useless conjecture. We should write a concise summary of attempts to construct a RL mecha for the main article and leave it at that. Kensai Max 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft as impractical OR machines. It's a mecha fanboy's favourite talking point and should be saved for the chat-rooms. QuagmireDog 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and crystal-ball work. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR using the level-7 anti-cruft cannon. --Charlesknight 12:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The OR rule is only put in place to stop vandals from proposing their own theories about subjects already established. There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Therefore finding sources is impossible. But it is still a subject of interest to mecha enthusiasts, therefore it should be kept because it is a notable subject of interest. Subjects on wikipedia also include pop culture topics which don't have acedemic research. See donkey punch for example. This is another topic based on pop culture. Lengis 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Yes there has. But they're known as exoskeletons. Bwithh 18:08, 28 September 2006 (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.