Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banpresto Originals Terminology

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banpresto Originals Terminology[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is 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, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Check also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha terms (2nd nomination) about a recent result about terminology in fiction. Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive in-universe information, per WP:WAF, WP:GAMECRUFT. Marasmusine (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same bloody reason as all the other articles before. At this point I'd almost like to salt all Super Robot Wars article forever.--Boffob (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per the above and all the other Super Robot Wars AFDs before this. I thought the situation with Pokemon was bad! MuZemike (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suitable combination article, of the sort that should be encouraged. The notability of the individual items covered here is not at issue,since its a combination article, if there is excessive detail it can be edited, and the primary sourcing is appropriate RS for this material--there is essentially no real OR. Of course the discussion of a game's details will be in-universe-all that matters to WP:NOT is that not all of the discussion as a whole is in-universe. I think that covers all the objections. DGG (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What are the references for this? This is original research. -- nips (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per comment above --Teancum (talk) 18:58, 4 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.