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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robotech Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Very long and detailed plot summary lacking in any third party sources or evidence of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete The article is poorly written and has problems. but the subject is a notable part of a notable thing. It can be improved and doesn't have to be deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any article "can be improved", but the last major content change was more than five years ago. Almost the entire article is plot, failing WP:Plot, part of Wikipedia policy on content. It's one of many Robotech articles that is fan writing and not encyclopaedic content. There is no doubt that the series itself is notable, but that does not give every fictional aspect of it the same notability. The likelyhood of the article being improved sufficiently enough to solve it's issues is very low. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability isn't determined by article quality, some articles are not notable and once improved won't be any more notable. I see this as a notable topic, there's no deadline it might suck four years but doesn't have to suck forever. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for the explanation of why it's a notable topic outside of it existing as part of an actual notable topic - notability isn't inherited. I'm not suggestion notability is determined by quality i'm suggesting it fails on both points separately. Quality usually isn't a deletion reason, but consisting of nothing but plot summary and original research/user opinion is. As for no deadline, again that's a quality thing not applicable with notability or policy arguments.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Again this can be transferred to wikia, I am not seeing the sources needed for notability. Oh and on the "but the subject is a notable part of a notable thing" please see WP:NOTINHERITED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- excessively lengthy in-universe plot summary with extremely poor sourcing (mostly to the work of fiction itself). No indication that this can be cleaned up to meet any sort of inclusion criterion, or of any potential merge target that would be improved by including any of this stuff. Reyk _YO! 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lets see if anything changes, these three sources [1], Cinema Blend, and this [2] covers the subject. This sources is secondary published source which covers the subject significantly. On top of this I am not see a valid criteria for deletion. Excessively lengthy, which I have shortened, is a call for clean up lacking in any third party sources requires these sources to be added, not deleted, this just barely passes by the hair. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the cleanup is neither the sole reason for nomination nor the main issue. However long plot summary can be a justification for deletion because of policy WP:NOTPLOT. However notability is the biggest issue. Your cinema blend link provides no evidence of the notability of the plot summary covered in the article. No one has arguing Robotech is notable or not, but rather all of the plot sumamries and character/mecha detail. Cinema Blend are more concerned with the announcement and history, so I don't see how that helps the article. Robototech Military Organisations does not appear to be a proper book, and is published by a publisher well known for packing wiki articles into "books" that separates it from a legitimate publisher. I also thinks it's possible that the Mark Hamil book falls into a similar category, it's a stretch to suggest a proper book summarising the roles of someone such as Mark Hamil would really dedicate that much space to quoting plot summary for a random voice role.

I also have to say that so far your actions over this afd and its blizzare non admin closure as no consensus was misguided and although you have graciously reopened it, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues with the article and dealing with it. As you claim on your talk page to not understand the rationale for deletion all of these actions are pretty strange to say the least. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Mark Hamill book is also repackaged Wiki content. Says so on one of the introductory pages. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeing the story revolves around this, I placed the info behind the REF and the Robotech Armed Forces in the lead section of List of Robotech characters. As for the rest of the information, the reader can go through the character list just like every other series that has an extended plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft (i.e., only plot summary written in an in-universe style), not suited to Wikipedia. Even if notable, which is not apparent, would need a 100% rewrite.  Sandstein  21:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Knowledgekid87 that is not correct Sandstein asked for a clean up to remove cruft I found an additional source Kotaku and found Jclemens's and Bryce Carmony's argument compelling enought. 98.110.16.169 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAfter a lot of searching I think the best thing for the content and readers of this content would be to export this to RoboTechWikia there's nothing wrong with depth in coverage but Wikipedia isn't the best home for it. I think it'll get more traffic and use at Wikia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  This is how every AfD should take place. I feel now there is a clear consensus to delete and our goal it to drive to one side or the other, now it has clearly happened. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a laugh? First you close it as no consensus when there already was one to delete, then lept to the articles defence based on shoddy sources and a misunderstanding of the issues, now you argue to delete it because someone else changed their mind and have the gall to say this is how afd's should work? You've made a complete mockery of the process. I can respect Bryce's change of opinion but on the other hand you've made the process much more complicated and drawn out than necessary. Nothing has changed in any of the arguments made but you've instantly changed your mind because he has. I can accept people changing their minds but in this case the history tells a very peculiar story. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, breaking down the argument prior to new arguments was a no consensus. Poor sourcing can be corrected excessive detail can be removed, also to invoking WP:PRESERVE, verifiable, NPOV, NOR material should be redirected to have history intact. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing can only be corrected if suitable sources exist, and it's up to those defending the article to show them. The consensus prior to your NAC was clearly to delete. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The main issue is sourcing, it would really help if there were sources out there that talk about the creation and conception for starters. We need third party non self published sources that don't mirror Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated sources exist Kotaku, Cinema Blend, [3]. I did not come to the conclusion without research and attempted to avoid a supervote. A two to one consensus is not clear, more discussion maybe necessary. One side suggested excessive information and additional sourcing required, at the time the other side believed those were not grounds for deletion, but clean up resulting in a lack of consensus. AfD was opened for three weeks with little discussion. Now that more detailed discussion has taken place with the AfD reopened we can move forward as a clear consensus appears to have been established. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:25, 22 April 2015 (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.