Nominated for deletionEdit
It shouldnt be deleted, the jumpsuit may only be availble via console commands and the only proof of its existance but still its part of the game.
- Personally I say delete it for the following reasons. There is no real notoriety of the Vault, but the main reason is that this is all assumption based of deleted content. The reason I say that is because there is no evidence that the vault existed, only the suit for the vault. As a example, Vault 13 was only completed the day of the Great War, so construction of vaults where still happening right up to the last day. Also the contents of the page are pretty much all assumption about the vault, with the majority of the rest of the actual content is about the suit and not the actual vault. If you removed all the assumptions and also all the content about the suit, which should be in its own page, you would be left with a single line, which brings back the question of notoriety of the article in question. ☣Avatar☣ 21:08, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
If you delete it and it's in a later Fallout release, you have to re-create the page again and might have lost information from the original page posted; the suit may be all that's left, but if you delete the page no one will no that there actually WAS a planned "Vault 24", so in my opinion to delete is a horrible idea, if it's there, it's there, it's just one page of a massive wiki being used for a simple cut location.
- Well if Vault 13 wasn't the last to be completed then the Vault page needs to be corrected to reflect this. As for the rest that is just assumption, all that is known is that the suit was planned, especially since there is no other cut content like incomplete cells etc. linking to the cause that there was a vault planned as well. And honestly what information is going to be lost since there is nothing know what so ever about the actual vault. ☣Avatar☣ 20:41, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
mentioned only and cut content Edit
We have a category specifically for cut content and another for mentioned only. This should be in those categories and thus not deleted.--Kingclyde 23:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I also think it should be kept. The article is quite clear about the source of the info. It may be the only article on the wiki that could be properly categorized as "mentioned-only in cut content." :)--Gothemasticator 02:05, January 3, 2011 (UTC)