Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practical mecha

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. Keep recommendations make scant reference to our policies for inclusion. Rje 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical mecha

This article appears to be just a write-up/argument for mechas. I fail to see the Wikipedia applicability of such material.Cipherswarm 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I created this page because its section on the mecha page was getting very large. Malamockq 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. Scorpiondollprincess 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, no WP:RS, better suited for a game website or forum than an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article was already present on the mecha page for several months now. It was very well written, and concise. Malamockq 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant essay/OR, not a single source cited. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very important article 69.208.141.179 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Note: IP's only edit.
  • Comment: Please explain this importance, in terms of the inclusion criteria, etc. AfD is not a vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:: It's important for the same reason why you think this article belongs on a game website. Obviously you don't even know what mecha is to begin with. Read the article, understand what it says and what mecha is, and then you'll know why it is important. By the way, don't use acronyms because they can confuse new users. Lengis 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, I do know what mecha is, because I read the article on mecha before suggesting my delete here. As for the acronyms, there's a reason I linked them to the articles to which they refer. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Try reading the article we are actually talking about. Malamockq 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Please assume good faith, i.e., that I at least look at the articles up for AfD before making my recommendations. In this case, I decided to reassess, and in my estimation it still falls under original research and is unverifiable due to lack of reliable sources. Instead of making blind assumptions about other editors' abilities to assess the "importance" of an article (which is not a true criterion for inclusion, by the way), please do your best to address these issues if you wish to have the article kept. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Excellent article. Must keep. Lengis 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep informative, shows multiple POVs without bias --WhiteDragon 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure essay and OR, and removing it from mecha was a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolute OR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:26, 2 August 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.