Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings and Roads (Air Gear) (2nd nomination)

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. Just for the record, Dream Focus was right that it was not an obvious G4 candidate Fritzpoll (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Roads (Air Gear)[edit]

Totally unsourced, written in-universe, and I doubt any sources exist to establish real world context. Nothing more than various fans collections of plot details. Ridernyc (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I suspected it was already deleted once before. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of an already deleted article. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect The whole set of Air Gear related article is a big mess. This one has the least legitimacy in the lot. Notability not asserted, in universe, not verified with citations & references and probably wrong article name. However some elements of this article should salvaged as the regalia represent a big chunk of the plot in this manga. --KrebMarkt 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous AFD had three people say delete, and it got deleted. The history of this article shows it has been edited by a lot of people over the past months. The title of the article is the same, but the article is not identical to the last one deleted. Just clarifying that, since I removed the speedy delete tag for that reason. The article doesn't need any references outside of its primary source, by the wikipedia law of common sense. Does anyone doubt this is a notable aspect of the popular fictional series Air Gear? Dream Focus 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edited by a lot of people yet not one bit of real world context or references. Ridernyc (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no subject specific guideline to fall back upon, WP:NOTE takes precedence. But even policy on verifiability requires that a subject must be covered by a reliable source independent of the subject, such as the work itself and author. As for your removal of the speedy tag because it was not word-for-word identical, that's full of it. If the article is substantially identical to the previously deleted article, it qualifies as a speedy deletion candidate. And the only one who can judge that right now is an administrator. But from what I remember of the previous article, they are substantially identical. In fact, this can be confirmed by visiting the Internet Archives (archive dated October 11, 2007, original article deleted on December 7, 2008). For that reason, I have restored the speedy deletion tag. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through that, and don't see how you could say its the same article. They list the same kings and roads, obviously, but much of the text is completely different, a lot of things added that weren't there before, and some chunks near the end not there at all. Stick to the AFD, since its here now, and stop trying to speedy delete things. Dream Focus 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability establishable through realityverse reliable sources that discuss this fictional thing. That many fanboys without a grasp on our notability requirements have edited this article has no bearing on its merits.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional concept(s) lacking any real world notability and more suitable for a specialized wiki Corpx (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally in-universe fancruft. Fails every draft version of WP:FICT which requires some kind of real-world significance backed up by independent and reliable sources. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 8 June 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.