Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90 (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- F90 Gundam Formula 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is written in a completely in-universe style. There is 1 line of context, and about a hundred of fictional specifications, and plot summary. Outside of the universe style, I doubt that the article subject is notable. RogueNinjatalk 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unreferenced in-universe fancruft. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 2nd nomination. 1st result was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90. --Alfadog (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zap it for now. I plan to start working on a complete rewrite of all Formula Project related articles presently and have had the relevant stuff backed up in my sandbox for some time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per nom Thinboy00 @852, i.e. 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete written entirely in in-universe style, and it simply cannot be written from real-world perspective -- there's absolutely no notability, no reliable sources, no nothing. Fancruft is the only word. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're not the one to determine whether this can be rewritten or not. That falls to me, because I'll be the one doing it. Moreover, making such a claim is crystal balling and should not be done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find multiple, non-trivial reliable sources -- which are actually about this object, and not just mention it in passing -- then you're welcome to write something that shows real-world importance and notability of this. Obviously, fan sites and blogs and suchlike are not acceptable as sources. As the article stands now, it's pure in-universe cruft about something that absolutely nobody cares about -- and that's putting it mildly. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What has that to do with your claim that this particular article could never be adequately sourced? Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find multiple, non-trivial reliable sources -- which are actually about this object, and not just mention it in passing -- then you're welcome to write something that shows real-world importance and notability of this. Obviously, fan sites and blogs and suchlike are not acceptable as sources. As the article stands now, it's pure in-universe cruft about something that absolutely nobody cares about -- and that's putting it mildly. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful Delete A fun read, but unfortunately it falls under WP:CRUFT. --Sharkface217 21:08, 30 December 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.