Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VFA-6 Alpha

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 No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFA-6 Alpha

VFA-6 Alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Individual fictional elements do not have or lack real world information to establish notability. The fictional information is already mentioned a variety of related articles. There is no current assertion for improvement. Also nominating the other "Veritech fighters":

VFH-10 Veritech AGAC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

VFB-9 Beta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

VF-8 Logan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and the animes' military organizations

U.N. Spacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Robotech Armed Forces (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Army of the Southern Cross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) « ₣M₣ » 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep on U.N. Spacy. As that article already says, the term directly inspired the nomenclature in at least three other separate franchises. This is not mentioned in other articles. 1-54-24 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If it is cited to a reliable source, then it matters. But without a citation, it doesn't matter. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Just where does it say this term originated or was borrowed in the first place from this anime? Even if did, how does this term alone warrant keeping this article instead of being in a "reception" section in Macross? « ₣M₣ » 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reference added. Also, the coinage of a new term that is subsequently used in other works is notable in of itself. 1-54-24 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• No significant coverage by reliable sources independant of the topic on any of these, ∴ it isn't notable. I personally find the link in one of the reference sections with the (site no longer exists) note hilarious. At any rate, isn't notable, so I support removal of the content, either by outright deletion and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or just a redirect. Also, to the nominator, I suggest in the future that you nominate things like this separately, otherwise people get screamy and the nominations fail on that basis alone. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

content not notable enough to make a separate article need not be deleted. It would f verifiable at all and of any relevance be appropriately merged, not lost in a redirect. Items of content are not expected to be independently notable.DGG (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Robotech. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Ned Scott 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Close as malformed AfD and pending the ArbCom case and its injunction on merging/redirecting/deleting fictional articles. There are several unrelated articles being combined into this AfD that doesn't belong together. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Close pending result of Arbcom case linked above. D.M.N. (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (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.