Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the Southern Cross

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 keep. (X! · talk) · @958 · 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Southern Cross[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally prodded as, "Unreferenced possible original research". I'll also add that this is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT as the article is nothing more than an extensive plot summary. Also fails WP:NOTE for not having significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:V (for over a year). If there were sources for it, I would say keep. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my original prod, article lacks references. Saying "there are plenty of similar anime pages throughout Wikipedia" is not a valid reason to keep. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything useful/sourcable add to The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross#Southern Cross Army, then redirect. This doesn't appear to be a notable topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is where do you find someone who knows enough about the subject to choose what important stuff to merge? The article has been unsourced for over a year now as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and dabify is a plausible search term for Robotech and The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross - so it should be a dab page for both, and merged into both, since some information is for both. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of third party references exist. I'll find and add some and/or tag for rescue. Major element of a notable fictional franchise which has been portrayed in anime and novels. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than 3rd party sources this article has been unsourced and tagged with being primarily in-universe since 2008. Wikipedia can not be used as a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of an article is not a criterion in deletion discussions. Rather, the discussion is based on its (presumably unreached) potential. The reason there aren't any sources is because I haven't added any yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-primary sources include...

various Google Books references, including
various news articles, over the past 20 years, mostly industry press referring to adaptations of the material.

The problem with these and tons of other sources is that the commentary on the "Robotech" and "Super Dimensional Cavalry" instantiations of the series, so there's certainly a challenge to appropriately source an article on one vs. the other. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there enough stuff among the coverage to warrant a spin-out article for this fictional military organization? --KrebMarkt 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Given that the organization exists in two slightly different incarnations, I'd rather that it was dealt with here, with the differences between the two series' take on the ASC in this article. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. I'll note again that I find it strange to accuse an article simultaneously of being plot summary and OR; they are obviously mutually exclusive problems, and accusers ought to at least make it clear that they are not contradicting themselves but the accusations refer to different parts of the article.

Notability is a little difficult for in-universe elements. There's no shortage of material to work from in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Army+of+the+Southern+Cross%22 and karridian.net alone (used in 11 of our articles) seems to source most if not all of the plot material; but I will leave it to others to decide whether all the hits redound not to the Army's but the series' or franchise's benefit. --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 18 February 2010 (GMT)

Keep Normally I would say merge, but this time there seem to be sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't trim and merge, replace with a redirect, or mass delete either. Plenty of valid information in the article of use to someone wishing to know about it. And sources have now been found establishing its notability. Dream Focus 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is sourced from the Robotech television series and the novels. Robotech is one of the most famous anime-adaptations in North America. It should be kept as is.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2010 (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.