Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAN-03 Braw Bro

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. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAN-03 Braw Bro

MAN-03 Braw Bro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. --maclean 07:03, 16 January 2007 (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.