Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:35, 26 September 2008

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units

In-world list of fictional equipment with no evidence of real world notability and severe original research issues. With no third party sources it is hard to see this list ever being compliant with core policies such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no proof of notability. Does not comply with policy. Jor dan^Contribs 06:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My God, Fancruft (and yes, I know fancruft is not a reason for deletion, but in this case I will ignore that rule). This article is entirely too long, it's written in an in-story perspective, and there's no evidence of outside notability whatsoever. This is why we have Wikia. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to feel free to ignore WP:ITSCRUFT, I'll up you a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ask why you don't go pick on, say, List of Star Wars spacecraft. Could it be a bit of WP:BIAS? Wikia is an information ghetto. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another list of fansquee masquerading as 'information'. JuJube (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Such cruftiness! X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What's needed here is a revision, not a deletion. Mecha lists are standard, particularly for Gundam series. At the moment it is rather too informative,but that is not a reason for deletion. Gundam SEED/Destiny's mecha list was much worse before it was slimmed down and reorganized; the same can and should be done here particularly because the start of the new season means that the article will only be continuously be resurrected (as well as continue to have a reason to exist). Notability is not a suitable criteria for deletion (due to its tremendously subjective nature) and for fictional works, first party sources are generally accepted as being the most reliable (since no one knows the work better than the authors themselves). the_one092001 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide real world sources to show the notability of the content of this article out of universe? That is the standard for keeping this list and the article also needs to be compliant with the policies/guidelines I listed in the nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per real world notability, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::Can you provide real world sources to show the notability of the content of this article out of universe? That is the standard for keeping this list and the article also needs to be compliant with the policies/guidelines I listed in the nomination. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Strong delete''' per items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of [[WP:LC]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Strong keep''' per real world notability, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.130|63.3.1.130]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.130|talk]]) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)