Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSN-03 Jagd Doga

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. The discussion has convincingly established that the sources used in the articles fall short of what we would expect in the light of WP:GNG and WP:RS. The arguments for keeping the articles must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSN-03 Jagd Doga[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and in-depth toy analysis better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary.

I am also nominating these articles with the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see plenty of sources and external links that establish notability in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do they establish notability? It's all just primary info, appearances, and lists of models. It never hurts to describe merchandise in something's impact, but that alone doesn't establish it as notable, especially when the models should be summed up briefly rather than as a laundry list. TTN (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having sources does not make them WP:GNG-valid sources that can actually establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. None of the sources in the articles are both about the subject and in-depth. Hardly any are reliable sources. There's mostly product pages, listings, appearances, generic info, but no critical commentary, no cultural impact besides appearances. The franchise is notable and suits are mentioned in relation to it, but notability is not inherited and the limited sourced information that isn't cruft or trivial appearances can be easily summarized in parent articles. This isn't even suitable for a list at this point without further sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MSN-02 and 04. In the MSN-02 article, the #4, #6 and #24 sources are clearly independent sources, #7 is debatablely not in depth enough, but still independent.(Using http://web.archive.org/). In the MSN-04 article, #7 and #16 are independent, while #1, 2 and 4 are debatable. Reliable or not, do you seriously expect Scientific Journal class reliability? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sources are reliable, it doesn't mean that their inclusion in the article counts as satisfying WP:N. They need to provide significant coverage for the topic, and that would be real world. non-primary info in this case. #4, #6, and #7 are nothing more than showing that it appears in something. #24 is a wiki, so I'm not sure how that is supposed to be reliable. #7 is used for in-universe information, and #16 is about official merchandise. #1, #2, and #4 are not debatable in any way from what I can tell. None of those provide development, reception, or cultural impact, so they don't help establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the above, sources have to be independent, reliable and in-depth at the same time, not so between them. Reviewing the ones mentioned more carefully, I agree with TTN, none of them pass WP:GNG mark. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references for MSN-03 Jagd Doga are a joke, they include a photo of the robot's toy model and links to an online shop selling them, as well as links to the maker's website. There is no evidence of real-world notability independent of the main media franchise. Delete also MSN-02 and 04, as even in the supposedly reliable sources they're given only the briefest of mentions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is a non-notable article that does not include any real-world information on the subject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (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.