Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century superweapons

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century superweapons[edit]

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

This does not establish notability for the overall topic, this does not help as a companion article to the main topic, and it is entirely composed of plot details. TTN (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Century. Ansh6 6 6 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I highly doubt the average reader is going to look up "List of Universal Century superweapons" in the search bar, I had been eyeing this one for awhile as well for deletion, its all WP:PLOT info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless Keep TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Ansh6 6 6 02:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's be honest here for a moment Ansh666: the page is going to be deleted, and nothing I say or do is gonna stop that from happening. Accordingly, while I could list any number of reasons for keeping the page here the way it is, the effort would ultimately be an exercise in futility. Why then debate in favor keeping the article when such a debate will ultimately be pointless? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the term "superweapon" seems to have been invented for this article. Aside from that, the whole thing is an unlikely search term and the entire contents is sourceless in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time the world checked, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were considered superweapons, and according to our article on superweapons, a superweapon is (and I quote) "a very powerful weapon compared to others of its time or era", which each weapon described in the article happens to be. It is therefore not original research to use the term, it would be more appropriate to consider the term misapplied since the term is used in a fictitious sense rather than the realistic sense everyone here seeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (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.