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 no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @054  ·  00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Gate[edit]

Phoenix Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. I believe that the article lacks the notability to have a page to itself, as it consists of a description followed by its use in plot in 4 episodes, which should be covered in the page List of Gargoyles episodes. All the contents of this page could be covered elsewhere on other existing pages. Taelus (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main page; too big too merge and there's no longer a good rd target. JJL (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as is normal for fictional elements. It is not too big to merge to a combination article on the various artifacts. If such an article has been deleted, this would be the time to recreate it by making this the first section. Whatever may have been done in the past, we should find consensus now in combination articles. DGG (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this makes sense to me too, if someone is willing to make such a page. It looks like the first AfD redirected to a page like that that was subsequently deleted, but perhaps there's more meat for that page now. JJL (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. JIP | Talk 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any sensible merge target has already been deleted, and this fails notability. Mintrick (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Double-Delete as 100% original research on a non-notable topic. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (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.