Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S Gundam


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

S Gundam

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

No third-party references or apparent notability evident from the article. Another member of the very large Gundam walled garden. Most of the content appears to be original research. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep/ cleanup. Some text is based on designer interview. Other sources outside the fictional universe are also given. Part of a notable game, so let kids have fun. A good school for writing wikipedia articles on "real-life" topics when kids grow up. - 7-bubёn >t 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and I am wondering why don't the two magazine source(Newtype and Model World) and the third party shop count as third party source. Another good example of nom not being familiar with sources before nominating. MythSearchertalk 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add  - I think this is a notable enough topic.  Gundam may be contained within a overly large universe, but it would seem that each element has enough plot complexity to be in themselves notable.  — Archon Magnus (Talk 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If it can be documented from the game itself, verifiability is met. And the magazine sources given do show Notability. DGG (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a list of Universal Century Gundam mecha and the novel article Gundam Sentinel. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequately sourced and referenced. Jtrainor (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mythsearcher. There's plenty of bad Gundam articles out there to AfD, but this isn't one of them. MalikCarr (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources (some of them not explicitly cited) do show some independent notability. Cleanup issues are cleanup issues, not cause for deletion. Keep. A merge to a list of Universal Century Gundam mecha would not be out of order, but that would be better handled as a concerted effort, not piecemeal by AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Editors who worked on this articles did some homeworks but it still need more references and citations but it way better than a lot of gundams articles. Merge is out of question as gundam list is right now in no shape for merge. For Afd, have fun with the royal battle of WP:FICT. KrebMarkt 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the proposal at WP:FICT. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. And as far as I can tell from Google searches, the article is not a hoax and concerns a popular subject.  Like every article, it should be better referenced, but it appears to have potential.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 3 February 2009 (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.