Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minerva class battleship (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 redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft. Consensus is that this is not notable, and per WP:V unsourced content should not be merged. So I'm redirecting for now; if any content is sourceable that can be merged from the history. Sandstein 09:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva class battleship

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

This fictional spaceship fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although a previous deletion discussion in 2008 closed as merge, due to the fact that all the information in the article is unsourced plot-only coverage, I would suggest deletion instead. Anthem 10:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft or even Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny as this is one of the primary fictional elements of that series. —Farix (t | c) 01:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft, nothing to merge as it is all unreferenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject of the article, a fictional spaceship, does not meet the general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced so there is no material worth merging. Jfgslo (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (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.