Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden


 * 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 all.  Notability issues aside, all articles are entirely unsourced, failing the core policy WP:V. The "keep" arguments do not address this issue, preferring to focus instead on less relevant issues in terms of policy, such as whether these articles should have been listed separately.  Sandstein  21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruach Ganeden

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

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are 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, and Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías. TTN (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per discussions given by the nominator. -- nips (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per my rationale in Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías and per the whole discussion in the other 3 AfDs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and the other AfD's. We seem to have a pretty good batting average for this particular series.  I'll be honest and say I'm not going to google all of those, but I checked a sample of a few and didn't find any RS. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and the related AfD pages. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all and consider individually on the talk pages for redirects. Does the nominator claim to have checked each of them and found there are no secondary sources? does he even claim to have actually looked at all of t hem?  Do any of the commentators above? Can an argument be offered for each of them why a redirect is inappropriate? the related afds are a very bad precedent indeed for removing material on the basis of vague impressions, for deleting on the basis of itlookslikeitmaynotbenotable. I would ask TTN for a discussion of each one of these in terms of each of the factors in the nomination. Then it can be judged whether there is a case to answer--or whether he might be correct. Just to pick one criterion for one example, I examined Laftkranz, and do not observe any plot summary--that particular charge is not correct for that article.  To pick an alphabetic sequence of articles and assert that none of them can be referenced is wanton destruction. DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make the case that even one of these is dissimilar? SRW is a series built on the appeal of silly cross-setting slugfests between disparate licensed mecha. The original characters are not the draw, and indeed original-generation games are the least successful in Japan. These are filler characters (or worse, objects) to glue the setting together, and are already covered in an appropriate level of detail (specifically: in passing if at all) in the articles on each SRW work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * nothing easier, just spot checkedanother one, Granzon/Neo Granzon and it contains no plot summary. That makes 2 out of 2 that do not fit the nomination. Proof therefore that the nomination was not done properly with respect to the examination of the actual articles. The merit of SRW as a game is not the issue here. Are you yourself prepared to assert that you have examined all the articles and looks to se if they can be sourced?  DGG (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed, some are characters who pilot ships, some are ships. That makes them clearly and obviously dissimilar. I and probably others are much more ready to remove articles about fictional hardware than fictional people. DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Technical and Historical" in Granzon/Neo Granzon is entirely plot or backstory, with no reference whatsoever made to the real world. (In fact, it's so poorly written that I can't even tell if it's story or backstory.) Likewise in Laftkranz; the only reason it doesn't appear to be plot or backstory is because it makes no reference whatsoever to the object's role in the story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Sourced mostly to enthusiasm and speculation, excessive plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all No reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Found a trivial mention of one of them here, but not significant enough coverage to assert notability. If someone believes appropriate sources exist, I'd gladly change my position if they WP:PROVEIT according to our verifiability policy. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All: Wiki should change to a pay encyclopedia with actual, qualified editors if they want to get respect as an actual encyclopedia. People like you merely deleting articles that are actually informative, if niche, won't change the already established opinion of wikipedia. 71.195.245.135 (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — 71.195.245.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please be WP:CIVIL in this discussion. Oh, and for charging money, you may want to read Village pump (policy)/Archive 55. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All Improper bundling of unrelated subjects - characters and ships - that should be listed separately. Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what they are... they all fail the same guideline/policy. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 30 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.