Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valsion

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 reliable sources = no article or nothing to mergeSecret ^account 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valsion[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term and merge to the main article (or character list) if any verification can be done. No independent notability doesn't mean its not notable at all (it can be notable in the context of the fictional universe). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no argument given for deletion rather than merging. Content to be merged in a combination article does not have to be independently notable, just documented--and the primary work is sufficient documentation for such characters. DGG (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we deleted all the other Super robots elements (more than 50 articles). -- nips (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: completely non-notable element, because there are no reliable third-party sources on this topic. Would not be resolved by merging a bunch of non-notable elements together, as that article would still lack reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 07:05, 5 December 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.