Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAM-07 Grabro

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. No policy/guideline reasons for keeping provided (aside from accusations of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and there's nowhere to merge it to. The article is mostly empty and lacks context. --Core desat 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAM-07 Grabro[edit]

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the MAM-07 Grabro for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Oh come on. This is an encyclopedia, not an... I don't know what... this doesn't belong here whatever the case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is more what I like to see instead of the WP:POINTed {{Prod}}ding of articles in-mass without no regard to if it should be cleaned up, merger, or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No citations to show it has any notability. Edison 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Delete The mere fact that we have to vote on these individually is enough. THe template at the bottom contains 10 times the info as the article MiracleMat 07:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely unintelligible for any non-fan. Utterly unencyclopaedic. --Folantin 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a list of specifications. No encyclopedic content at all. --Pak21 14:28, 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 00:29, 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 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nothing wrong with mass nominations per se. These are even being treated on a case by case basis rather than a group nom. What's to complain about. It's efficient not timewasting. Bwithh 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 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?). In this case, there is very little information, and a seperate article does seem a bit much. Still, no reason not to merge. Also, to first response "Speedy Delete", your inability to justify why it doesn't belong here makes it seem that you are just deleting because you dont' care about it. Xenon Zaleo 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. --maclean 07:05, 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.