Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept-X 6-1-2 Turn X


 * 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   merge to List of Turn A Gundam gundams.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Concept-X 6-1-2 Turn X

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   -- TTN (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Although the nom simply copy and pasted nomination reasons, and it is simply wrong(the first 2 sources are from a third party source), this article got no reason to be separated out from the other less outstanding mechas from the same series. MythSearchertalk 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. Cutting and pasting my response as well. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Here is a random quote from the article: "the MS-14Jg Gelgoog Jäger is a late model Gelgoog that appeared in limited numbers". And this is important - why exactly? The article is largely unencyclopedic. GregorB (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for correction, I mixed up the articles and ended up pasting the quote in the wrong tab. (Might still use it in the appropriate discussion, but quotes like these are very interchangeable, which is a part of the problem.) GregorB (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe I don't understand, but it is still unclear to me why this subject is important. The article says this suit was "superior to any machine existing at the time" (without citation, though); this would, of course, cement the notability of a real weapon, but for a fictional weapon this is irrelevant. Fictional things are notable for their involvement in the plot or, possibly, their cultural impact. Note also the characteristic "Specifications" section. Since these specifications are essentially made up, there is no limit on how detailed they can be. But how important they are? Same as the rest of the article GregorB (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom did not read the article and used a copy-pasted rationale that is clearly false. The poster above me apparently rushed to vote delete so quickly that he didn't even check which AFD he was on. Jtrainor (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Article is referenced, though it could stand some more to shore it up. Either way, the article's contents are not incidental, so they should be preserved in some format or other. MalikCarr (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a list of Turn A Gundam gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Edward321 (talk) 23:06, 19 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.