Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan

: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 Merge to Full Metal Panic! as not notable on its own. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

=[[TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan]]=

:{{la|TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan}} ([{{fullurl:TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete as per WP:V. Though it's a newly created article but it seems totally unverifiable and unreferenced claim. Thus nominating for AfD. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

: Merge to Full Metal Panic! - all google hits I can spot point to that as the source. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

::Merge to Full Metal Panic! - It is a reference to Full Metal. So, I agree with h2g2bob. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 23:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

::Merge, or re-direct, with Full Metal Panic. That article mentions this. I guess they'd be happy to source and reference it. (I didn't add the link to the FMP page because I'm not sure about the WQ) Dan Beale-Cocks 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Full Metal Panic!. There's not enough here to make an article of its own, but there's probably just enough for a mention there. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a article on the ship in the spanish wikipedia articles (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTD-1), so I don't see why there shouldn't be one in english. This one may not be much yet, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlestar atlantis (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with the FMP fictional universe article, or an FMP list of equipment article. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep it. It has enough there to be it's own article. I looked at it before and it wasn't much, but now it is enough to stay as an article.

I know that when I started this article, it was not much of anything, but now, although it is little more than a brief description, I think it is enough to have it's own article. I don't think that merging it to the list of equpiment article is right because it is somewhat of a seperate kind of thing. I think that there is enough content on the page to make it an article or at least the start of one. For these reasons, I disagree with the idea of deleting or merging it.--Battlestar atlantis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlestar atlantis (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I think it's a reasonable merge - remove the formatting, and it's perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs; I don't see any evidence that the ship itself practically a character, like in series such as The Super Dimension Fortress Macross with its SDF-1 Macross. --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 16 March 2008 (GMT)

No, it's not a character but it is a "mecha" kind of thing. There are a lot of articles on mecha (for example gundam) which have their own article, some of them shorter than this one (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAT-01_Strike_Dagger). --Battlestar atlantis

:*Gundam articles are well known to have serious problems. They do need some serious cleaned up. But the fact that they are a mess does not excuse other mess elsewhere. --Farix (Talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge as above. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge The subject is not notable in itself and even fails WP:FICT, however some of the content can be merged back into the main article. --Farix (Talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep The only thing to do in order to make in notable is to clean it up and put references. Otherwise, this goes down the trash. Ominae (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:* Comment: if you have references that demonstrate its notability (beyond simply verifying statements in the article), now would be a good time to demonstrate their existance. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2008 (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.