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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robotech vehicles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is almost exclusively in universe descriptions of fictional vehicles and as such is unencyclopedic. All of the references are from Robotech franchise products rather than outside sources which does little to establish the notability of this fictional topic. Things like this are much better handled on separate wikis like this one [1]. --Daniel (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Daniel (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. Robotech one of the first adaptations of Japanese animation to a Western Audience. Wikipedia has a wide variety of articles covering the Robotech Universe (see Template:Robotech). That more than proves this topic is certainly notable. In addition, given the list of references at the bottom of the, I fail to see why this is not properly sourced. A lot of editors (myself included) have put a lot of work into this article, which has taken almost six years to develop. It's true that some portions of this page could be shortened (or even removed), but deleting the entire article outright seems like overkill.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

How do a wide variety of articles on other topics (some that should also be deleted) prove this article to be notable? Robotech's notability as a widely known animation is not inherited by its fictional content. The question is, have multiple reliable sources, outside of Robotech media, discussed these fictional vehicles in any depth? A long list of "references" does not always add up to notability. The references used in this article are exclusively of two types, references to Robotech media itself (which do not establish notability) and fan speculation (which has no place whatsoever in a real encyclopedia). The thing is, the work yourself and others have put into this article does not need to be lost. This content could easily be moved to the Robotech wiki that I linked to without losing anything. --Daniel (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of Robotech's importance or notability. It's a question of the individual article in question. Character lists are generally accepted as spin out articles for various reasons, plus a well done character list will include critical reception of one or more characters. Vehicles and equipment lists tend to be considered unsuitable for Wikipedia articles due to their minimal scope - they generally aren't discussed by reliable third party sources and aren't likely to be of interest to the general user. The fan speculation has no place here and the other references tell us things but not what those things are important. The nomination is correct in saying there are more suited places to put this kind of information than Wikipedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and looks like a lot of cleanup is necessary here. A quick look at the character articles show the same kind of in-universe/walled garden issue, these need trimmed well down. This type of in-universe content without independent referencing and analysis works for a Wikia, but isn't appropriate here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Delete as not notable; WP:GNG not met. Note that as none of the editors whom !voted "keep" has given any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping the article, their arguments should not be given significant weight; and as User:Seraphimblade has said, many other Robotech articles also suffer from the same problem of unproven notability and lack of adequate sourcing. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN, I know there are fans of this show but we are not wikia. My suggestion is for anyone who wants to keep these things to transfer the information over to the wikia fansite as sadly the sources are just not here to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary detail. Second Kid's suggestion of transwiki. --erachima talk 08:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it only looks like there are lots of sources. There actually aren't. You can see that most of the inline citations actually go to the series' official website or to the fictional series itself, thus are no good for establishing notability. Others are just blatant original research. "These are only the estimates of the fans." Give me a break. Reyk _YO! 03:58, 23 August 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.