Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Eureka Seven mecha (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Eureka Seven mecha
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this article for deletion because I think that this article does not pass the General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability and Notability (fiction). Also concerning is Verifiability and Reliable sources, since this article has no third-party sources.

I have no problem with merging it into the appropriate subpages, but as this article does not seem to pass stand-alone notability and sourcing requirements, it's time to do something. If no one wants to merge it now, I'm afraid we would have to delete it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability of the mecha that can't be explained on the main page for setting. As of this post, the article is completely unsourced, not even books that would go into detail on the mecha used in the franchise as with Star Trek ships. I suggest some WP:TNT and move the most important data to the main. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing here indicates notability, better left for wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overly in-depth fictional material is not necessary, and this doesn't have sources to establish a reason for even a cut down version of the article. TTN (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (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.