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. The discussion has convincingly established that the sources used in the articles fall short of what we would expect in the light of
WP:GNG and
WP:RS. The arguments for keeping the articles must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep I see plenty of sources and external links that establish notability in the article. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
How do they establish notability? It's all just primary info, appearances, and lists of models. It never hurts to describe merchandise in something's impact, but that alone doesn't establish it as notable, especially when the models should be summed up briefly rather than as a laundry list.
TTN (
talk) 19:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Simply having sources does not make them
WP:GNG-valid sources that can actually establish notability. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete all as not passing
WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. None of the sources in the articles are both about the subject and in-depth. Hardly any are reliable sources. There's mostly product pages, listings, appearances, generic info, but no critical commentary, no cultural impact besides appearances. The franchise is notable and suits are mentioned in relation to it, but notability is not inherited and the limited sourced information that isn't cruft or trivial appearances can be easily summarized in parent articles. This isn't even suitable for a list at this point without further sources. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep MSN-02 and 04. In the MSN-02 article, the #4, #6 and #24 sources are clearly independent sources, #7 is debatablely not in depth enough, but still independent.(Using
http://web.archive.org/). In the MSN-04 article, #7 and #16 are independent, while #1, 2 and 4 are debatable. Reliable or not, do you seriously expect Scientific Journal class reliability? —Preceding
signed comment added by
MythSearchertalk 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Even if sources are reliable, it doesn't mean that their inclusion in the article counts as satisfying
WP:N. They need to provide significant coverage for the topic, and that would be real world. non-primary info in this case. #4, #6, and #7 are nothing more than showing that it appears in something. #24 is a wiki, so I'm not sure how that is supposed to be reliable. #7 is used for in-universe information, and #16 is about official merchandise. #1, #2, and #4 are not debatable in any way from what I can tell. None of those provide development, reception, or cultural impact, so they don't help establish notability.
TTN (
talk) 16:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Echoing the above, sources have to be independent, reliable and in-depth at the same time, not so between them. Reviewing the ones mentioned more carefully, I agree with TTN, none of them pass
WP:GNG mark. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, the references for
MSN-03 Jagd Doga are a joke, they include a
photo of the robot's toy model and links to an online shop selling them, as well as links to the maker's website. There is no evidence of real-world notability independent of the main media franchise. Delete also MSN-02 and 04, as even in the supposedly reliable sources they're given only the briefest of mentions.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk) 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 03:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GNG and
WP:RS. This is a non-notable article that does not include any real-world information on the subject.
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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.