Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMA-953 BABI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Scott eiπ 06:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what this article says. I cannot believe it is encyclopedic.. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears to be something, perhaps Gundam-related, although it is difficult to tell when taken out of context. On one hand, I think it could almost be speedied as nonsense, but I wouldn't advocate it. Could anyone shed some light on the subject? Mr Bound 18:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete first choice, second choice merge redir to some combined Mobile fighting suits in the Gundam universe, or some such, as the consensus was to do with similar categories of minor fictional characters. (Checking 'what links here' gives some context--seems to be comparable to Pokemon attack levels, or whatever.). Niteowlneils 19:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it's more akin to having articles for individual Pokemon. Which Wikipedia does indeed have. There are a total of 393 (!) such articles on Wiki. Redxiv 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per consensus. Kappa 22:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, Gundam cruft. Megan1967 04:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whatever it is, it is some sort of cruft. Martg76 09:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, people who aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to know whether something is notable should generally abstain from VFD on it. Redxiv 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some Gundam article. This information might actually be of use, but individual articles for every single mobile suit type is fancruft in the extreme. — JIP | Talk 17:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is mostly one big fat template full of links to surprisingly big articles. Considering this article in isolation I would have voted delete, but I really need to see some vision about what to do with all articles in that template. So for now Keep this fancruft. --MarSch 13:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The original reason for nominating this for deletion is no longer valid after the article's cleanup. redxiv 00:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.