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 Keep—The general consensus is that the topic is notable. There remains a dispute over what form the notable information should be in: a stand-alone article, a redirect to another already extant article containing the material (e.g. merge), or creation of a new umbrella article for which this would be a sub-topic. This means that we are now in 'content dispute' territory. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proton pack[edit]

Proton pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article already has all its notable information at the Ghostbusters (franchise) article, and does not have enough notability to stand on its own, as there are very few out of universe information sources for it. As such, it is just a duplication of the other article and is unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I agree that it is notable to a limited extent, but this can still be deleted as all the notable information is already in the other article, and there isn't enought referencing to justify a whole article just to this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much content would you require for an independent article? Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all its going to be, as a full article would need lots of references, enough to fill out a development section and a reaction section, and the few that it has justifies its presence in the mother article not one of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're judging the article on the references it currently has. Other references could potentially be added to this article; we need to focus our discussion on those. In addition to what I mentioned above, there are the following (not available for free online):
  • Rachel Porter. "Toys were us". The (London) Express. 22 September 2005. (lists the Proton Pack as Toys R Us' most popular product of 1988)
  • "Briefly put..." The Roanoake Times. 31 October 2003. (about a young man who was arrested at a Florida airport for wearing a home made Proton Pack)
  • Ted Delaney. "Ads often make us feel like babes in toyland". Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. 24 December 1988. (about the difficulty of finding a Proton Pack in toystores)
There's probably more, if I keep looking Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, it would be great if any of the Keepers would actually read this discussion, because I have not argued that this article has no notability, I have said it doesn't have enough notability to have its own article, and all of this material is already in the Ghostbusters franchise article, so this can be safely deleted, as we don't need the same information in two places. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite; there's a good amount of info in this article that's not in the other, and there's more information about the proton pack that could be added here. You could argue for a merge, I suupose, but that wouldn't require deletion tools. Zagalejo^^^ 01:50, 30 November 2007 (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.
More