Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MA-04X Zakrello


 * 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. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MA-04X Zakrello

 * — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Short answer: WP:INN. Longer answer: apples and oranges comparison, since those fictional weapons play important roles in the movies, with the attempted destruction of the latter being essentially the main plot of TWO movies. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *How does WP:INN apply? The poster made a blanket statement about fictional weapons, which if taken at face value means they should also be suggesting Lightsaber and Death Star as well.  If that isn't what they meant, why did they even bring the issue up?  Notability is a separate issue altogether. Edward321 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Folantin 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate.  Edward321 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. It's just another piece of fictional equipment playing no really important part. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner is just in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. Minor characters should be merged (as per WP:FICT) but trivial things are best just not being mentioned at all. --Pak21 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * — Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commet - You cited policy that's completely irrelevent as it should be superceded by WP:FICT. And while you also cited WP:FICT, supposed violation of WP:FICT is minor and should be corrected by rewrites, not deletion.Xenon Zaleo 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. The entire Early Universal Century Mobile weapons needs to be brought in line with WP:FICTION and Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or deleted. --maclean 06:52, 16 January 2007 (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.