Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garland SF-01

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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garland SF-01[edit]

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

Fictional vehicle article containing nothing but original research and specs. Six year old in-universe,notability and unsourced tags. Unlikely to have the scope for a legitimate article. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable vehicle lacking coverage to establish notability. P.S. in the future, consider bundling the articles together. Though not too late either, just point the second nomination to this one. Opencooper (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire (Delete) - This is made for wikia, not Wikipedia as per nom it fails per WP:OR/WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable. The Eight-Six in Initial D has more notability and even that doesn't have an article or redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either an article on the various fictional cars depicted, or into the main anime article itself. No reason to delete this, when it can be solved via regular editing. Non-notability is not a reason to remove the history of good faith contributions from Wikipedia, bur rather a good reason to curate them into one or more articles that both aligns with our guidelines and serves our readers. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. It's all uncited original research or redundant plot. This content is more appropriate for a fan wiki, and you're more than welcome to transwiki it to Wikia if you don't want to see it lost. Opencooper (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Cooper, if there were content to salvage that was referenced then okay, but what we have is just fan based nonsense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2016 (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.