Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardick


 * 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   redirect to List of Zoids. Possibly merge some from history. There is consensus not to have an article on this, if not clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wardick

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as plausible search term and merge anything verifiable in a list. Also, AFD says that deletion should be a final resort for things that cannot be solved with editing. The nominator has not shown there are no possible sources available which could help this article prior to nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nn per the above. Eusebeus (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perplexed comment. If this is about something called a "warshark", why is the article entitled "wardick"? JulesH (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * – sgeureka t•c 19:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect, leaving the option to merge for interested editors. No sourced real-world information to merge, notability not established. – sgeureka t•c 19:06, 4 December 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.