Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage


 * 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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapiéçage

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. A group/list article would be acceptable, but definately not an article for each. Discussion for all related Afd's are directed to this nom since it came up first. Dengero (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles for deletion/Ring Mao was in fact snow-closed as keep because it tried to bring related SRW AfDs together. – sgeureka t•c 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Super Robot Wars or List of Super Robot Wars characters and be selective about merging content. - Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Doing them this way permits people to spot and comment on any particuar one of this which might be different from the others, so it's a good way of working.  Merge, not delete, because o reason given why some of the content is not appropriate in a combined article. None of t he reasons apply, because the individual items in an article do not have to meet WP:N, the game itself & its guides are reliable sources for routine unconverted material, plot summary can be reduced,as can the game-guide like details, and writing down what is obvious is not OR--I think that covers all the reasons given. Was a merge attempted in the first palace without coming here? Obviously they are excessive as individual articles in general--I am however not going to check these myself in detail. But I am not arguing for a keep. DGG (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated by nominator.--Boffob (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards.  The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope.  There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone.  Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note In addition to all above discussion that resulted in deletion, any recent similar AfD resulted in deletion as well. For example Articles for deletion/RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and stats. gnfnrf (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No appropriate sources to meet our WP:V policy, and no real world context to meet our WP:PLOT policy either. Randomran (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources to establish notability. This applies to each of these subjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:58, 26 November 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.