Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross

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 to delete. While that means this defaults to keep, I'd point out that the general consensus within the debate below indicates that a merge would be suitable. The central argument that many agree with is that these articles are not encyclopedic, nor are they meeting our standards. The dispute is over how to fix that issue, and I think the consensus within this debate is that editorial clean-up is the preferred option. To turn a metaphor, people would rather prune the unwieldy tree than chop it down, since the tree itself seems to have value. I'd suggest good faith efforts are made to clean these articles up, work out which ones need merging, establish whatever redirects are needed, and then anything superfluous be brought back to the appropriate deletion venue. I think all parties should allow a reasonable period of time to get that work done, and I'd advise against a group listing of this set of articles in the future. So while this has defaulted to keep, no-one should walk away under the illusion that the status quo is acceptable; that would be a severe misreading of the consensus below. Hiding T 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross

Article is about a fictional vehicle from a cartoon series and fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Basically a plot summary with no indication of having received additional coverage through reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

These are all about fictional planets, locations and plants from the same series. Sloane (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Entirely plot summary and in-universe details without any sort of real-world information for non-notable fictional elements which have not received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These article are drawn from very popular television series. Articles like this are common throughout wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unnotable fictional vehicles and other fictional elements. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, with no significant coverage from reliable sources on any real-world aspect of these vehicles/items. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer than half the articles nominated for discussion are about vehicles. DGG (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked to include "other elements" which I noted in my second sentence. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and Transwiki?) - There's been no attempt to establish real world notability but they're otherwise articles that aren't crafted too badly. Because of the lack of real world notability they don't belong here but maybe they belong somewhere. --Boston (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and heavily cleanup SDF-1 Macross. Calling the SDF Macross unnotable is like proposing Starship Enterprise for deletion for the same thing, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or not. I agree the page is in need of showing the notability, but it really is a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. The same possibly extends to VF-1 Valkyrie. These two articles should not be part of any mass deletion process, and the sources most definately exist. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into suitable articles. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. Nominating miscellaneous articles for deletion in apparently random indiscriminate groups is confusing and unproductive. DGG (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Random? These are all articles about the same cartoon.--Sloane (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two actually. DGG is correct though, lumping them all together just because they are from the same franchise is rather questionable. If they were all character articles or all vehicle articles there would be less of a complaint Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never liked derailing a productive discussion on semantic grounds. It reeks too much of obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked again and these are all from the Robotech cartoon series. And if it makes you happy, I'll be sure to not lump in any fictional plants with fictional vehicles next time.--Sloane (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are also Super Dimension Fortress Macross, which Robotech uses as source material for the first 1/3 of its content Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- Excessively lengthy, excessively crufty articles about minor aspects of a fictional world. It is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to provide so much unsourced detail on non-notable fictional elements; there's Wikia for that. A merge is not appropriate because unsourced information should be deleted rather than stashed away in other articles- presenting the information correctly would mean sourcing it and rewriting it, and if you're going to do that you might as well do it from scratch in the merge target rather than putting it in a bad article and then merging. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is a cleanup issue not a deletion issue for an article of this type. Would you suggest delete as cruft if it was well sourced but needed trimming? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft as I understand it includes a lot of flaws an article can have. Some can be fixed, like being badly written, written from an entirely in-universe perspective, full of conjecture, or written as effusive fannish praise. Although even then I might recommend deleting because sometimes it's just so awful it's better to tear it down and start over. Other faults cannot be fixed, such as the nonexistence of sources that establish notability or verifiability. When I use "cruft" as a deletion reason it's because I think the article has one or more of the unfixable faults, and I usually mention them explicitly as well. Reyk _YO! 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken 10k of text off the article already and am currently adding some sources. Hopefully this will show that the article can be saved without having to delete it first. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - well I think that that articles should stay unless we delete articles like Coruscant, X-wing, Cylon Basestar, etc... -- Bojan 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally saying other articles exist is not a good argument to use. Perhaps the other articles have advantages that these ones don't, such as substantial coverage in independent sources. Or perhaps they are equally deserving of deletion and it's just that nobody has got around to them yet. The existence of one article on Wikipedia has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of another. Reyk _YO! 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks, but I know the rule. But also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and therefore, my vote is week keep. -- Bojan 01:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many find it odd that the same types of articles are never challenged elsewhere. That is because no one nominates anything at all, no matter what it is, if it has enough fans around to defend it. They just pick on the unpopular kids for now, and go after the rest once they believe they have enough numbers. Various deletionists have already commented on this tactic of theirs in the past. Consensus is more of a popularity contest than anything else. Dream Focus 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus should be about strength of argument rather than a simple head count. If that's how it worked in practice a lot more terrible articles would be deleted, and a lot more bad articles with potential would actually be improved because the "OMGKeepImportant!1!!one!" brigade would suddenly realize that finding sources and establishing notability actually matters. As it stands, all the fannish side have to do is turn up to AfD en masse and go "Keep. Important" and save the cruft through "no consensus". Closing admins who actually have the courage to correctly close such a discussion by weighing up the actual arguments, and delete the article, frequently get raked over the coals at deletion review by inclusionists going "OMG! Head count! Head count! 8 deletes to 5 keeps! That's ZOMGNOCONSENSUS!!!!" so that there's no incentive for a closing admin to do anything but take the "no consensus" route to start with. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You should not delete something because of its length, or because you consider fancruft. The ship is a key feature used in a highly successful series, and there is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article for deletion tag for all of those things comes back here. Never saw that done before. I don't see as how all of those could be grouped together. I vote Keep all. If you want to nominate things separately, then they'll be seriously considered on their individual merit. Dream Focus 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia guidelines is a hardly an argument for keeping the articles. See WP:BUNDLE.--Sloane (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get the feeling the other articles in this "grouping" will mean SDF-1 gets deleted even if cleaned up and shows notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major trim and merge per Dandy Sephy. The SDF-1 and most of these vehicles were covered in independent derivative works (Robotech (role-playing game)) by Palladium Books and novels in the 1980's, all based on the original manga and long since out of print. Agree that there's generally no need for this raft of articles, which should be intelligently merged, nor is there a need for the huge, detailed plot summaries. Nothing against transwiki'ing these as they are, but many of these are genuinely notable fictional elements per WP:FICT, and should be kept as redirects. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books references include, excluding the fictional works themselves
  - The Art of Robotech
  - Watching Anime, Reading Manga
  - Fortresses: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (There are several similar hits... not entirely sure what they all are)
  - The Science of Anime
- Google News has a few relevant hits, too.
  - Gamespy
  - Akiba Today --Not entirely sure what this one is, but Google News lists it.
  - Space.com episode recap.
  - CNet mentioning SDF-1 in the context of a GameCube game.
- Overall, this was a pretty trivial search for independent sources which mention the SDF-1 (and "Macross" to cut down on false positives). Again, the article(s) should be cleaned up and merged intelligently, but there is no question that sufficient independent, reliable sources exist to establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately after starting to add some of them, the webster quotation sources aren't any good. Ironically, despite being published works, their source is wikipedia according to their prefaces ....... Pretty sure we cant use them! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't forget the computer organization Super Dimension Fortress! --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 8 March 2009 (GMT)

Keep and perhaps editorially merge. Reasonable spinout articles of hugely notable series. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though notability of these topics are dubious and they're like 80% plot summary, it doesn't appear like you tried to challenge the notability before taking the articles to AfD. Personally I think most the plot should be cut from these articles and to merge them down to fewer articles or to parent articles; but this looks like the case of taking articles to AfD without trying alternate solutions first. AfD is supposed to be the last resort. Also: @Dandy I'm not sure WP:SK applies here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, it was a reactionary comment. I've decided to try to improve the article instead. Of all the Robotech articles needing removal or merging, SDF-1 is not the first one to tackle (and people are completely unaware that Robotech is only part of the dicussion with that article)Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems kind of unfair to those working on the article to hit them with an AfD without any prior discussion or tagging. It kind of imposes this unnecessary deadline that could actually hinder the creation of a good article by forcing a hurried search for references and hasty trimming. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The subject of Robotech needing merges and such was started and there was discussion, and a lot of content has since been dealt with. However, this was mostly character work, not the major plot device of an entire series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced SDF-1 Macross by 16k, and VF-1 Valkyrie by 13k. That should help with cruft complaints (they need work, but they are now half the size they were). I've only added 1 reliable source for each though as im tired, and this debacle is the only reason I'm up. However 1 source is a published book, and the other source is from Anime News Network. I've no doubt that more sources exist, but it requires time to collect and add them. Countless books and magazines have discussed both of these in great detail, and I suspect that given time these articles can clearly demonstrate notability. I propose at least delaying a final decision on these two articles for at least one week. The remaining articles are unlikely to demonstrate notability, and should be either be split to a seperate discussion, or have SDF-1 and VF-1 removed from the current discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is the focus of the major plot line of the series. It's the reason behind the actions of all the major characters, the reasons the aliens come to Earth, and so on. As for the Valkyrie, it's the major attack vehicle used in the series, and both the SDF-1 and the Valkyrie have had a whole series of models, toys, games (video games and otherwise), puzzles, etc., created based on them. There are numerous official and unofficial books about the series, as well as numerous articles in magazines, on websites, etc. These articles only fail sourcing, not notability. Lack of sourcing just means people need to get the sources into the article, not that the subjects are non-notable. The rest of the articles should be merged into an article like List of vehicles and mecha in the Macross universe. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SDF-1 and VF-1 Valkyrie, since they are featured in alot of material, and form the basis of realistic-looking transformable mecha weaponry in anime/manga and cartoons. Further, VF-1 was a very popular toy, and the basis of a Transformers toy, and two characters, which is an entirely separate fictional universe. Merge the fictional locations into a List of locations in Macross and List of locations in Robotech (this would parallel how other fictional universes are dealt with), the fictional vehicles into a List of vehicles in Macross and counterpart for Robotech (this would parallel how Gundam is handled), the other stuff into overviews of the Macross and Robotech universes... say Macross (fictional universe) and Robotech (fictional universe), since the flower of life is a central concept to Robotech, and Protoculture is a central concept to Macross. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all of this should also be transwikied whether they are kept or not, to [1] and [2] and [3] 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All (and I did check them all). Woeful failure to meet any reasonable inclusion criteria other than WP:ILIKEIT. These are non-notable in the extreme and unverified other than by primary sources (and I loved the refs to ja:wp). People, such cruft hurts Wikipedia; please stop degrading the project with such dross — this is what Wikipedia is not. nb: I specifically endorse the comments by Reyk and recommend them to others. From a few further peeks about, there are many more 'articles' in the navbox that should not be here either; Lisa Hayes, for example — next batch. Jack Merridew 07:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments have a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about them, so be careful about throwing such things around. That and you're claiming 'these' are "non notable in the extreme" when several editors are stating that two of them are far more notable then are being given credit for (the rest fair enough, but you are lumping them in together). Again, deleting articles in need of cleanup and sourcing is not what afd is for. Lastly, the navbox is outdated, several pages have already been merged Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're badgering me about your WP:OR re my views? Too funny. I'd suggest you badger someone else, but it appears you are doing rather a lot of that on this page already. Jack Merridew 07:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete None of these is notable in the real world, which is what Wikipedia's articles are judged by; they are all excessively in-universe and should be transwiki'd to the appropriate wiki. We need reliable sources showing that these subjects are notable in themselves, since notability isn't inherited from the parent article. I quote WP:PLOT: Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. If this doesn't apply to these articles, what does it apply to? Themfromspace (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lets avoid systemic bias shall we? Nihonjoe makes the policy based argument and makes it well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge others Salute Nihonjoe contribution here. I would rather keep SDF-1 and VF-1 Valkyrie as they let me think a bit of that one: Gundam (mobile suit). Granted those two need lot of trimming, sourcing and tone adjustment BUT i think that any readers wanting a clear and complete understanding on Sci-Fi anime mecha subject won't get it without those two. Those who think that 4-5 lines about those two subjects will do, are not doing better than tossing a ham bone to potential readers. My motive here is the Wikipedia coverage completeness of the Sci-Fi anime mecha subject. The remaining articles should be sorted and merged as the Macross & Robotech licenses are mixed up. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having little to no real-world notability. Second choice would be merging. For the sake of full disclosure, please note that I was canvassed to come to this AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You were not alone User_talk:KrebMarkt#AfD_nomination_of_SDF-1_Macross --KrebMarkt 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the participants were. Anime related AFD's never attract this much attention by themselves. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandy Sephy Stay cool will you ? This whole Afd is already tainted be the canvassing regardless the result and i strongly suggest Sloane to refrain himself/herself next time. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tainted, lol. There is nothing wrong with proper canvassing. It helps get as much editors as possible to an afd.--Sloane (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed The "canvassing" to get me here was done logically--based on previous AfD contributions--and neutrally--i.e., the nominator invited me, even though I was likely to (and did) make a modified keep argument. I wish every nominator was as conscientious. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should have my apologize. I'm a real dick to a be a such unbeliever of Good Faith. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps pare down. I have stayed out of the arguments on including the various historical events in Robotech, but the Macross itself is a more significant fictional construct, existing in multiple contradictory series, & this page usefully shows its usage across those. It's more like Robin Hood or Cthulhu in that way than like, say, Yumura Kirika. Ventifax (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SDF-2 Megaroad-01, SDF-3 Pioneer, SDF-4 Izumo, Optera, Tirol (fictional planet), Reflex Point, Flower of Life (fiction), and Protoculture (Macross) for lacking non-notable. I always find it easier to rewrite a concise list entry summary from scratch then try to trim down an couple of pages of plot summary down to ~100-200 words. Merge or Redirect SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie to an appropriate place with no prejudice to restoring when more reliable third-party sources are found. I'm actually more neutral on the last two and I do know that the Veritech was the bases of one of the G1 Transformers, though sources should be sought to substantiate that. --Farix (Talk) 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I added to VF-1 concerning the toy ranges mentioned it, so I have added this fact and used a named reference Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked the reference and didn't see it mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job you did check, I recalled the wrong reference... Fixed Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough.. bringing that subject there. The Valkyrie was borrowed or so in early Battletech game design see BattleMech#Land-Air_.27Mech_.28LAM.29. I may have the incriminated Technical Readout: 3025. (Need to check my Battetech collection) --KrebMarkt 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL Since they are about fictional location and/or vehicles from an influential SCIENCE FICTION TV animated series as important to the genre as the Tripod from War of the Worlds, the Powered Armor from Starship Troopers, the Enterprise from Star Trek or the Lightsabers from Star Wars. The fact that any of the people who don't know or aren't interested in those topics want it deleted doesn't mean they aren't important. If they are deleted then you could very well star deleting everything related to SCIENCE FICTION as well....Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of a WP:ALLORNOTHING falacy. Notability is not related to to people being interested in a topic. It only relates to reliable independent sources being interested in the topic.--Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like? As far as I know, the SDF-1 Macross and the VF-1 Valkyrie are robot anime symbols recognized in Japanese media as well as the Gundam. Do all the countless toy companies and model magazines still producing articles related to such icons count as reliable independent sources? --Kronnang Dunn (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. You can't really make a blanket statements about sources. I'm just saying it makes no sense to say "if you delete x, you have to delete everything in the whole category". Don't get me wrong, I think they should be kept. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie, Merge the rest. As has been shown, there are plenty of independant sources, and these are notable elements from notable setting. I'd suggest books on the history of anime be checked for sourcing as well, as the series was one of the first major successes in the US that led to the current popularity of anime and manga there. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universe of Robotech. The best i could think of is merging all the article to Universe of Robotech and then from there make it encyclopedic. It is better to do this way than deleting it. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are shared with Super Dimension Fortress Macross Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes iam aware of that. Macross will have to share the same fate has Robotech. The whole of character section needs to be merged and the whole bunch of vehicles need to be merged or be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge Macross and Robotech since both are different Universes. The Macross franchise is even bigger and has more productions (anime series, OVAS and movies) than the Robotech one. Merging both will make it more even confusing than it already is for people who want to learn (what is the main use of Wikipedia, am I wrong?) anything about both franchises and the differences between them. --Kronnang Dunn (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Robotech merges the completely unrelated The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross and The Super Dimension Century Orguss. People should really learn about what merges they are proposing, before they propose them Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i not made it clear. I was not talking about merging Macross and Robotech together.--SkyWalker (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is not the best use of community resources. As DGG points out AfD wasn't likely even needed here. Keep all and let those interested work to suss out what, where and when to merge anything. We're not in a rush here. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and cleanup mainly as per DGG. Arguments like "such cruft hurts Wikipedia" really put me off. There are many articles on Wikipedia on which I would never ever spend my time reading, I just can't see why this entitles me to deny others from doing that. As long as it is factual and meets the five pillars, (or could reasonably be made to meet the five pillars, especially WP:V) it should stay. WP:IDONTLIKEIT sums up my attitude to the pages, but it is a terrible argument for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SDF-1 Macross: The others can be merged into a list if necessary (I have no real opinion on them, but this process of nominating 20 things for deletion together has to stop), but the Macross is an extremely notable machine, as well as having historical significance. Article badly needs to be rewritten, not deleted.kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SDF-1 Macross This is an important cultural symbol and franchise marker in japan, it is on the same level as the Enterprise, argumbly more used than the Galactica, and yet nominated? The others need to be listed but this is just the determinist WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work WngLdr34 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did find the page where the image caption on the right side was quoted verbatim. Maybe Wiki is in copyright violation too? I cited the page in the fist section of caption for everybody's reference. However, there seems to be a lot of 2nd nature knowledge here, as in this is something someone has studied for so long they have knowledge but failed to cite enough sources. Plus there are so many discussing the page that there is interst to keep it. Let's keep looking for more to support the articleHappy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I will defend to the death my right to have an article on Star Destroyers, and I don't see how this is any different. Some guy (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's different because it's about a different topic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (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.