Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology of Macross


 * 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 ---  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Technology of Macross

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the anime Macross. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- its best to keep notable articles, improve/merge them, rather than just nominate them for fun like you. AndreNatas (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a completely pointless comment. Why would we keep an article that has no notability? If there is no notability, there is no way to "improve" it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is notable, it must be to be on wikipedia on the first place. Your attitude stinks and it shows. AndreNatas (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is notable, it must be to be on wikipedia in the first place"... Wow, that just might be the most wrong thing ever said in the history of the Internet. JuJube (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources that establish notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet, and an AFD isn't a vote.


 * Delete fancruft. No real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - technology from fiction with no indication of notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per established consensus, the technology of an anime series rarely to never meets WP:N and WP:FICT requirements for notability and inclusion. This article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence that the items listed are notable. The topic of "technology of Macross" does not have any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Collectonian (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Even though this is not Gundam, WP:GUNDAM notes that WP:FICT's real world significance and notability can be established by "appearance[s] in another series, not dedicated to the original series." The Macross Destroid mechanical designs were reused, almost unchanged, into FASA's BattleTech strategy tabletop games, computer games, and novels (as well as three different remakes of each original design). They were also used in Testors' R.O.B.O.T. model series and of course, Harmony Gold's Robotech remake, which used both the original designs with a changed story and evolved versions in Robotech II: The Sentinels production designs. The use by different companies of the same designs led to a lawsuit, and that lawsuit eventually led to these designs being removed from BattleTech almost a decade after their introduction. Three non-Macross franchises with dramatically different stories have used these designs, and that caused a lawsuit in the United States. This is more than enough to establish notability. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect a real-world context with sources and to cite the lawsuit involving two of the non-Macross franchises, but it should be kept. 1-54-24 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All that stuff needs to be added with reliable sources to the article, otherwise the article hasn't demonstrated any notability. Can't just take peoples word for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Farix (Talk) 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per 1-54-24. --Gwern (contribs) 17:39 16 March 2008 (GMT)


 * Delete or merge if anyone feels there's any prose worth keeping in another article. I have to admit, the concept might not be a bad idea, an article about technology in the Macross series, but.. this article isn't what I expected it would be (from the title, that is). -- Ned Scott 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation if the allegations by the article's creator, 1-54-24, can be properly supported by reliable sources. Article in its current form does not verify real-world notability and assertions above of notability are likewise not verified. From WP:N, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." From WP:V, "Burden of Evidence" section, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This should be userfied if 1-54-24 would like to work on it further, I believe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per 1-54-24. --User:Iceberg3k (lost my password) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.42.68 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 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.