Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arado Balanga

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, for a start. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They don't establish any notability and they contain real world information. -- nips (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Destroy them all, all per WP:NOT (some of them are just baffling); but first, let's make sure there's an alternate home for all this content (i.e. transwiki), because I'm sure someone or a small group of editors did a lot of work here, and we shouldn't make it a complete loss. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Combine appropriately into a list Judging by a sampling, there is no justification for individual articles, but I equally see no justification for total omission. DGG (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into an appropriate character list article. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into character list Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. The reason that we don't merge is because that won't solve the central issue: a lack of reliable third-party sources even in aggregate, thus failing WP:N and WP:V even when compiled together. Randomran (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the articles show any evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources. A character list may be appropriate but I don't think that these largely original research based plot summaries would be a good basis for it. Guest9999 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have I heard that before? MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.