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 no consensus. X clamation point 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geruder[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has substantial amounts of real world information ignored by the nominator who also didn't check for sources as per WP:AFD.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RWC--a long and appropriate discussion of the various releases. That's the sort of product ion & distribution information appropriate to these articles. The sources do need to be added, but it is inappropriate to delete unless they can be shown to be unsourcable--otherwise the thing to do is source. There's almost no plot information here, and to give facts about the specific devices is not trivial. As for "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article,", it amounts to BECAUSE I SAID SO AND YOU DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. What is an "assertion for future improvement"? Can you give an example? DGG (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability. All the real-world context is no good if it is original research. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being verifiable and being verified are two different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete border copy violation from [1]. That was the only source found. No independent, non-encyclopedia (mirror) sources found. Fails WP:N Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be just copying material from a website whose material is not copyrighted. I see no claims to it, so there serves no purpose tagging it as a potential copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 08:07, 13 December 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.