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. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrudgelmir (Mecha)[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual element of the video game series has not any significant coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a reason against merging, just against keeping as a separate article. Merged content has to be of relevance t o the articlem ot idependently notable--if it were, it would get a full article. So what';s the reason for deletion rather than merging? DGG (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is for articles that lack notability on its own (WP:GNG requests for sufficient sources for comprehensive coverage of a subject to make it notable). When an article is to be merged, it is the content that abide Wikipedia policy that would be merged, not any knick-knack. This article simply consists of three portions. A general descriptive that anyone can write and has no need for any history retention of authorship. A background plot that is excessive, indiscriminate, and written in a totally in-universe that serves no encyclopaedic function, even when the subject is put into a simple list. Lastly, a technical specification section that is not within this project's scope. The last two fail under WP:NOT. Information in any of these three portions are not even covered by reliable third-party sources, and the first can be recreated or written in another form by anyone (no special authorship or rights can apply). All in all, the article text has nothing worthy to be preserved in form of history or for merging into a list. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (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.