Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardian Units of Nations

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/keep. Close voting numerically, but article clearly has potential. Organization has played a large role in several games of the Sonic franchise, which has massive notability. Questions of trimming article content should be taken up on the talk page. GlassCobra 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Units of Nations[edit]

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Existing sources are either primary sources, or unreliable sources. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's contents. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect, entries in Index of Sonic the Hedgehog characters is sufficient to describe it and its constituent members. Nifboy (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia five pillars. This has the potential of a good article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~; provided proper references can be found to establish notability, the article as a whole needs a huge revamp and could be cut down quite considerably. SynergyBlades (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishing notability is exactly the problem. And you're kind of ignoring it. Randomran (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, my apologies. Having re-read your criteria at the top, I see there probably will not be enough references to establish notability on this one. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and the video game project's guidelines on scope of articles. Oh, and Fairfieldfencer, please don't go down that road... User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: G.U.N. is a faily important part of the Sonic series, granted the article is currently in a very poor state. Unless we can completely revamp it, and really improve it, I say weak keep. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^{Soul teh Hedgehog} 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A fictional recurring military... the article goes into too much insufficient details. There won't be any third-party sources for this one although that probably wouldn't have been the case if that Shadow the Hedgehog video game wasn't so poorly received. Sega Project members feel free to clean-up the plot sections of Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic X, etc and mention it there if appropriate. « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That still doesn't establish notability or provide verifiability; take the search results and read the nomination, every word of which explains why that Google search just adds to the delete side of the debate. It's back over to you to explain how that Google search makes the article notable and provides the needed verifiability when there are no secondary sources we can use in said search to do so. SynergyBlades (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROVEIT. MuZemike (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - G.U.N.. let's give it some time to get going. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^{Soul teh Hedgie} 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That structure in the sandbox link you just posted (edited to avoid confusion) would be overly convoluted for an article on this subject and would still not address notability, but let's stick to the topic at hand, which is this particular article in its current state. SynergyBlades (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Synergy, that is not the standard., If it can be improved it should not be deleted. Its present state is an editing question. DGG (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't quite understand what you're saying, but I think it's worth pointing out that my comment immediately preceding yours was referring to the sandbox link that SLJ posted, not the current article status, if that's where the confusion comes from. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 1 September 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.