Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion (Gundam)

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 delete. I am compelled to follow the opinions of TTN and Sepiroth BCR, as their comments are the only ones actually addressing the article in terms of our relevant inclusion policies and guidelines. While the comment of 63.3.1.2 appears to do so as well, it is a mere mirror image of the nomination, and factually inaccurate. The other comments are pure votes and/or include comments not pertinent to the matter at hand, such as "Just more in-universe nonsense" or "The protagonists ships' in Gundam series are usually significant" (while there is, in fact, no notability guideline or other rule to that effect). Sandstein 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Gundam)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is not a weapon, it's a spaceship. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a "list of ships in the UC timeline" 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protagonists ships' in Gundam series are usually significant. However, the article does emphasize in-universe descriptions/history too much and should be summarized instead. --Polaron | Talk 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remind TTN that AFD is not clean up. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a "list of ships in the UC timeline". Just more in-universe nonsense that will never be cleaned up regardless of any promises here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Polaron. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – same as the rest of this Gundam-cruft. Asserts no notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT by being nothing more than superfluous plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2008 (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.