| Revision as of 11:59, 2 April 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:34, 19 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :{{la|Second Robotech War}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Second Robotech War}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Fails ] and ]. Article can be transwikied to and . ] (]) 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | Fails ] and ]. Article can be transwikied to and . ] (]) 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—— |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—— ] <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">'''(])'''</sup> 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' – pretty blatant failure of ]. No notability asserted either through any sources independent of the topic. — |
*'''Delete''' – pretty blatant failure of ]. No notability asserted either through any sources independent of the topic. — ] <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">'''(])'''</sup> 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Excessive and crufty ] sourced entirely from ]. Spectacularly fails our requirements for ] and ]. ] ] 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - Excessive and crufty ] sourced entirely from ]. Spectacularly fails our requirements for ] and ]. ] ] 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Transwiki''' to suggested locations, and '''redirect''' to ] ] (]) 06:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Transwiki''' to suggested locations, and '''redirect''' to ] ] (]) 06:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| *'''Keep''' ] trumps ]. If you don't like reading about this key aspects of an immensely popular and influential work, then aren't likely to ever find the article to begin with, and can simply ignore it. There is no reason to delete it. It does not help the wikipedia at all to destroy articles like this. ] 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' ] trumps ]. If you don't like reading about this key aspects of an immensely popular and influential work, then aren't likely to ever find the article to begin with, and can simply ignore it. There is no reason to delete it. It does not help the wikipedia at all to destroy articles like this. ] 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *:Here's a common-sense, non-lawyery argument: We have all of this plot in other articles, three times over. This is written entirely in a style ], under a title better suited to a fan site. | *:Here's a common-sense, non-lawyery argument: We have all of this plot in other articles, three times over. This is written entirely in a style ], under a title better suited to a fan site. | ||
| *:Oh yeah, and '''delete''' this nonsense. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | *:Oh yeah, and '''delete''' this nonsense. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Shows no ''real-world'' notability as required per ]. Contains excessive in-universe ] which isn't what Misplaced Pages article's should contain. ] (]) 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Shows no ''real-world'' notability as required per ]. Contains excessive in-universe ] which isn't what Misplaced Pages article's should contain. ] (]) 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Entirely plot summary and in-universe information for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received substantial in reliable secondary sources. ] <small>(])</small> 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Entirely plot summary and in-universe information for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received substantial in reliable secondary sources. ] <small>(])</small> 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:34, 19 May 2022
- 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 Robotech Wars . Transwiki can still be performed. MBisanz 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Second Robotech War
- Second Robotech War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP: Fiction and WP: Notability. Article can be transwikied to here and here. SkyWalker (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —— sephiroth bcr 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete – pretty blatant failure of WP:NOT#PLOT. No notability asserted either through any sources independent of the topic. — sephiroth bcr 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Excessive and crufty plot summary sourced entirely from primary sources. Spectacularly fails our requirements for reliable sources and notability. Reyk YO! 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Transwiki to suggested locations, and redirect to Robotech Wars 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment this article is a plot summary of season two of Robotech 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or Transwiki Too in-Universe and the mix of WP:ANIME plot summary and the WP:MILHIST MoS make me howl what the hell of this. --KrebMarkt 07:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Transwiki to the Robotech Wikia and then delete. One of the more gross violations of WP:NOT#PLOT. The article also has issues with WP:V and WP:NOR. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This article is an accurate summary of the First Robotech Saga television series. Robotech was one of the earliest and most important extrapolation of Japanese anime to a western audience. The article is sourced from the television series as well as the Robotech Novels. It should not be deleted. Alternatively, it could be merged with the Robotech Wars article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
- Comment WP:NOT trumps WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete In-universe original research. At most deserves mention in an article about the fictional work in which it appears. Lacks independent and reliable coverage in its own right. Fails Notability and WP:FICTION. Edison (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep WP:SENSE trumps wikilawyering. If you don't like reading about this key aspects of an immensely popular and influential work, then aren't likely to ever find the article to begin with, and can simply ignore it. There is no reason to delete it. It does not help the wikipedia at all to destroy articles like this. Dream Focus 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a common-sense, non-lawyery argument: We have all of this plot in other articles, three times over. This is written entirely in a style which is discouraged, under a title better suited to a fan site.
- Oh yeah, and delete this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Shows no real-world notability as required per WP:N. Contains excessive in-universe plot summary which isn't what Misplaced Pages article's should contain. Themfromspace (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe information for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received substantial in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Cruft per the usual reasons elucidated by the above dels. Jack Merridew 07:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete marginally (and that's charitable) referenced in-universe plot summary for non-notable fictional event. --EEMIV (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Transwiki to the Robotech Wikia and then delete.Smallman12q (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge all to Robotech Wars, apparently the parent with all these separately sent to AFD;
- There seems to have been no effort to actually discuss merging usable content which may be the best solution. Looking at each AfD separately it wasn't clear they were related. Merging seems to make sense. -- Banjeboi 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteArticle established no notability on its own.--Sloane (talk) 23:56, 7 March 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.