Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Base (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 keep. No !votes for deletion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Base

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

Non-notable fictional spaceship. Claritas § 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSame reason as last nomination, with emphasis on at least 3 of the 4 sources being secondary, 3rd party. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable outside of the fanbase - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment General WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reply. If it is notable anywhere, and multiple secondarily sourced, your remarks are against WP:N —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck opinion, to Weak Keep Article just needs more sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are several books listed in the article, which presumably cover the subject. Assuming that they do, this should be kept. I say weak keep because I have not read those sources and do not know what they actually contain. I will say that, unlike all the other Gundam articles being nominated for deletion recently, this one seems like it should be notable, as it is the main ship used by the protagonists in the iconic first Gundam series. Calathan (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator fails to explain how multiple references for article do not meet our GNG, he simply asserts it without evidence. While I don't read Japanese, I would expect that someone so confidently nominating a fictionaly element with a foreign-language origin would be able to give a detailed appraisal of the sources, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2012 (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.