Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glidoler


 * 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. Secret account 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Glidoler

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Zoids. There's no original research in sight and you made no effort showing the article is unverifiable rather than unverified by making a reasonable effort to find sources as required by WP:AFD. (those are two different things) - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all verifiable content to List of Zoids; then redirect. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete more pointless zoidcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- I think devoting an entire article to one fictional robot among many in Zoids is a violation of WP:UNDUE. I have also looked for sources and found no reliable, independent secondary sources which would demonstrate real-world notability. Reyk  YO!  00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable third party sources that offer significant coverage turn up in my searches. So the article fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 03:27, 12 December 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.