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. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robotech Wars (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)

No indication of any real word Notability, this isn't wikia or a fansite. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much like many of the Robotech articles, this is just long over detailed plot summary with no real world context or notability. Sources are all either from the work itself or the official website. This is not an encyclopaedic article and is not suitable for wikipedia.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree that this is unreferenced and excessive plot summary, it's more important to see what it is: a consolidation of several dozen other smaller, equally unreferenced pages. Take a look at what links here for the article--there are several redirects that point here. Robotech is certainly not near the thriving topic of interest that it was 20 years ago, but we should have SOME content rather than a bunch of redlinks and broken redirects. I don't have the time to clean it up, but in this case, I argue that keeping it in its current broken state is a less bad alternative than deleting it--how many other deletion discussions closed as merge, resulting in those other former articles now pointing to this one? Deleting this undoes all that. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with the reasons for nomination but want to keep it because it's in your words "some content"? Red links are easily removed, so that should never be a factor in keeping an article. the page being the result of merges and deletions is not really an issue, the lack of progress on the article has shown there was a good reason the previous pages would have been acted on in the first place. The series not being a "thriving topic of interest" actually makes it more suitable for this sort of analysis of it's content and there not being any interest is a very good reason to cut back on excessive content which is what articles for both series suffer from. Instead of focusing on long plot summaries across several character, terminology and history articles, the focus should be on the core encyclopaedic content; details about the show and it's premise, it's production and reception. There is no shortage of useful information for these areas without the need to pad them out with this type of content. Articles should provide an overall summary for all types of reader, not detail only a fan would want to read. Wikia exists for that purpose.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at other huge franchises such as Sailor Moon, notice we don't have List of battles in Sailor Moon or the wars involving the Sailor Senshi and Chaos. A wise editor once told me to keep the summaries short and let the reader enjoy the series for themselves, we don't need un-sourced loads of WP:OR BS that tells detailed information down to what Rick Hunter had for breakfast in episode such and such. As for the redirects, I can bet some are very in universe that only fans of the show would understand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- way too long, nothing but plot summary written primarily in an in-universe style, and has no sourcing to speak of. Cruft is cruft and should be deleted, no matter how often it's been shovelled from one place to another. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This source here appears to give this in fictional universe wars significant coverage. Also received some coverage in this [1], and [2] Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That book is by a publisher that repackages Wikipedia content, not a reliable source. Reyk _YO! 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too much in-universe data. Article reads too much as if it is applicable to the real world when it fact only notable to the series itself. If at all possible, a single paragraph under a "Setting" sub-heading could be salvaged somewhere from this....whatever this is. But given the shape of the other articles in this franchise, I don't even know where we'd put that. —Kirt^Message 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing the wars involve the characters, I placed the info in the lead section over at List of Robotech characters. No in depth detail, just enough to give the reader what the wars are about to fit them into a better understanding of the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This reminds me of TTN's old nominations. Per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia is not a catalog of indiscriminate plot points or synopses. Wikipedia mirrors and trivial mentions are not enough to save this article. It needs significant, real-world coverage from independent reliable sources. This sort of plot-only article belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I love the article and wish I could vote otherwise. However, except for one reference to a Robotech movie in which Mark Hamill (and which does not expressly discuss the subject of this article), all references are to the Robotech website. Accordingly, there are not authoritative or reliable sources and nothing that demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:43, 30 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.