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. The participation was low, if someone is interested, one can try again in a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam[edit]

Psyco Gundam (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)

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The references in the article are all either unsuitable or irrelevant to the topic of the article, so they do not count as significant coverage for the article. TTN (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am seeing third party sources in books published, [1], [2], (Common Knowledge of Gundam (ガンダムの常識), Futabasha ISBN 978-4-575-30150-2 P.92) as well as making appearances in American video games.[3]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that sources are reliable sources does not mean their inclusion makes them instantly relevant to establishing notability. The first source is one of those collections of wiki articles that people put together and sell to suckers. That obviously doesn't count. Common Knowledge is referencing a minor bit of primary production information. That is not enough for notability, and I would not be surprised if the book was also primary given the details it is sourcing. I don't know how you could think sourcing its appearances would be an indicator of notability. That is not significant coverage in the least, and that would mean anything that has appeared in a couple pieces of media would be instantly notable. TTN (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• First book is actually from wikia but the second book isn't exactly convincing. A reliable source for information? Yes, but I'm not sure a series specific guidebook counts as notability coverage in this case. The same goes for it being used in games. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (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.