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 keep. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGM-89 Jegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Contrary to the nominator, the article lists a large number of sources. Edward321 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —G.A.S^talk 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've seen non-fictional articles with less references than that. MalikCarr (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom did not read the article and merely used a copy-paste rationale without checking to see if it was valid. Jtrainor (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Edward321 and Jtrainor. -- Banjeboi 18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more Gundamcruft. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Claiming something is 'cruft' is not a valid reason for deletion. Jtrainor (talk) 03:48, 21 October 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.