Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archangel class assault ship (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel class assault ship[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional spaceship - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Claritas § 08:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am surprised that this even survived the last AfD, even with tons of Gundam related sources on my shelves, I don't find this notable. Also, it seems like the last AfD consensus tends towards a merge or delete but only kept because who initiated the AfD was blocked. But again, it simply showed that I like Gundam comment in the other AfD a complete lie. Just another WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of mass AfD wiki user. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable references on this fictional ship type. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails per WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator was found to have previous socked to attempt to delete this specific article, as is documented in the above, and as such should be perpetually ineligible for such a re-nomination. Failing that, it should be merged to a list of other non-notable fictional elements if the coverage is insufficient, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that the nominator was banned for being a sock that does not erase the issues this article has, there is no coverage to be found here. As for a merge if a list has non-notable unsourced fictional elements in it, then it should not be on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely in-universe and no signs of external notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 23 December 2012 (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.