Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion: R (second nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Genesis Evangelion: R

First AfD here, Maikeru first suggested this nomination. I am voting Speedy G4 as recreated content. Royboycrashfan 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G4 per nom. Should be taken to WP:DRV if it's contested, not re-created. -- Mithent 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion was never contested. Royboycrashfan 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because it's not an offical part of the Evangelion storyline; it's merely fan-made. - Brittany
• Delete Non-encyclopedic Celcius 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4 per nom. --AaronS 03:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not a speedy. I have no vote on this on its merits, but the long article that is here now is not substantially similar to the previous content (which was a stub), and hence speedy criterion G4 does not apply. Dragons flight 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at any velocity as non-canonical additions to a fictional story (ie fanfiction, or if you want to be meaner, fancruft). -- Saberwyn 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree it probably doesn't meet CSD G4, but I think it's not notable even with the larger article -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• It seems large and relevant enough that it merit some brief mention in the main article (probably just a link as "fanfiction" from the Series' main article page), but not its own article Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Better not to use G4 on things that are clearly non-notable because the creator might just repost it will more fancruft. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft, simple as that. Staxringold 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Fan fiction is not notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, I know I'm in the minority here, but this is actually one of the rare examples of notable fan fiction. Its a major production and has some notable people involved in it such as Tiffany Grant. JoshuaZ 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Or, since everyone else clearly disagrees with me, maybe just going a long with Mysidia's suggestion? JoshuaZ 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless JoshuaZ has evidence of notability beyond that one ADV's voice actors was involved. I've heard of Retake and Exodus but I haven't even heard of this one and google is not telling a good story in its favour. kotepho 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft AdamJacobMuller 03:09, 11 March 2006 (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.