- 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 redirect to Mekton. Up to editors whether to merge any sourceable content. Sandstein 20:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. The Prod for this article was removed when a second source was added, but this source, "Le Grog", looks to me like a semi-wiki (anyone can become a contributor, but needs approval, not just direct editing like a true wiki), and is a completist website, not a reliable, distinctive source. This looks to me comparable to, say, IMDb (or Discogs or Boardgamegeek or Findagrave), which is a very interesting and useful website, but where inclusion gives no notability at all, as it is a site aiming to be complete, not a site discussing only the important, impactful, exceptional, ... elements.
There are no GBook hits of any essence about this book, only mentions in lists of all books, and there are only 72 Google hits in total, which is not a lot for such geeky stuff which is normally well represented online. [1] Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per available sources, or merge review to Mekton per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 13:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not only are there the issues of that "Le Grog" source being potentially unreliable, it is nothing but a database showing the basic information for the product, not any kind of review or discussion. So, there is only the one review in a niche publication. Searching for additional sources turned up nothing. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge to Mekton#Editions_of_Mekton. At least the Future Publishing reference indicates this passes WP:V and as such we should WP:PRESERVE. FOARP ( talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 02:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Mekton. Up to editors whether to merge any sourceable content. Sandstein 20:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. The Prod for this article was removed when a second source was added, but this source, "Le Grog", looks to me like a semi-wiki (anyone can become a contributor, but needs approval, not just direct editing like a true wiki), and is a completist website, not a reliable, distinctive source. This looks to me comparable to, say, IMDb (or Discogs or Boardgamegeek or Findagrave), which is a very interesting and useful website, but where inclusion gives no notability at all, as it is a site aiming to be complete, not a site discussing only the important, impactful, exceptional, ... elements.
There are no GBook hits of any essence about this book, only mentions in lists of all books, and there are only 72 Google hits in total, which is not a lot for such geeky stuff which is normally well represented online. [1] Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per available sources, or merge review to Mekton per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 13:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not only are there the issues of that "Le Grog" source being potentially unreliable, it is nothing but a database showing the basic information for the product, not any kind of review or discussion. So, there is only the one review in a niche publication. Searching for additional sources turned up nothing. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge to Mekton#Editions_of_Mekton. At least the Future Publishing reference indicates this passes WP:V and as such we should WP:PRESERVE. FOARP ( talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 02:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.