Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MA-05 Bigro

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. —Centrx→talk • 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA-05 Bigro

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.--Folantin 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all existing articles in this series. ~ Flame vip e r 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - merge to where? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:FICT is a guideline. It most definitely does not supersede policy. --Pak21 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: WP:RS is also only a guideline. WP:V is a policy, but there are numerous websites (both commercial and fanmade), as well as books and booklets published by the company that contain this information. Therefore, it passes verifiability. Furthermore, NO WHERE in WP:V is it stated that a source must be from outside the area that the article topic is from. Xenon Zaleo 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete. Also, AfD should not be the first resort if you have a problem with an article. Talk pages exist for a reason, and I notice this article's talk page hasn't been used. Redxiv 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is also not a valid reason to keep it. But the AfD provides reasons why deletion may be appropriate: it questions the article's notability, verifiability, conformance with guidelines for fictional information, etc. I believe that while Wikipedia can be a fine place for someone to begin to learn about Gundam, once they get down to wanting this level of information they should go to a dedicated fan site. Zaku kai 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. I have noticed that they have basically used a template. so basically, we have a troll group aimed at deleting all Gundam articles out there. Cleanup, yes, but keep.George Leung 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup with other Zeon and Federation Mobile Armor articles. Of the various articles, the Mobile Armors are really not noteworthy enough to deserve their own individual pages, especially when they are portrayed in-series as one-off Monsters of the Week. Maikeru 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Perhaps a severely condensed portion could be merged somewhere, but much of this seems to be WP:OR, which means merging it would be a bad idea. GassyGuy 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even close to WP:OR, it's simply a case of bad citing. Xenon Zaleo 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. --maclean 06:56, 16 January 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.