Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Zoids

: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 delete. The "Keep" by Judo112 was given significantly less weight per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE NW (Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Ghost Zoids]]=

:{{la|Ghost Zoids}} ([{{fullurl:Ghost Zoids|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Zoids}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Ghost Zoids}})

This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Trivial listcruft. Notable content (if there is any) should be merged into an existing notable Zoids article. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep per well written article. Established notability of Ghost zoids. etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable line. Content is just speculation and a product listing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:There are thousands of products who has wikipedia article about them. why should this be any different. the delete sayers seems to be stuck to some paragraph in soem lawbook somewhere:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2009 (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.