- 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, although the article is crying out for a good reference for the phenomenon. Steve (Stephen) talk 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR, the article has been tagged for a while and concerns about the original research were discussed last November but no reliable sources have been added. The article's main defender even admitted this is a field that is not yet well documented by verifiable sources. As that seems to be true, this may aso fail WP:N. I suspect the article may be used mainly to promote forums and message boards, they have been removed before but re-added repeatedly (the links are also in blod text, which is odd.) Crazysuit 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do think that a real article is possible under this title, as prop replicas are becoming a popular form of movie merchandise. This article, however, isn't about that, it's about homemade cosplay-type props and seems more of an excuse for a bunch of external links than a real attempt at an encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above; notability evinced by community links; cosplay and other manifestations of fandom aren't prima facie non-notable simply if they are amateur-driven and not-for-profit. Agree with observation that article is currently poorly written, though that seems beside the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete No sources = original research. the_undertow talk 06:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing shown to indicate prop replica is notable in any way, nor has any significant coverage in media etc.--Dacium 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; in my opinion the web links prove that there is enough fans and organisations around this cruft to be verified and included in Wikipedia. --Ioannes Pragensis 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeletePer Starblind.Shindo9Hikaru 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the examples given in the article indicate that sources should be findable, though of course they need to be found. the information there is sufficient to show the general notability of the subject. DGG 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe Prop/Cosplay replica cumminities frequently hold knowledge that can't be located via other means... They have helped to develop the use of electronics, resins, fabrics and adapting existing materials and whilst the article is poorly written it is not an excuse for a delete. If there can be a Wikipedia article for every single Pokemon then this in my mind is fair game for inclusion.-Kingpin1055 13:19, 4 May 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.