Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Mao

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 per WP:SNOW. Either nominate separately or at least split this up. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Mao

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. TTN (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject out of hand and ask for some assurance from the nominator that each article has been individually examined to see if it does meet each of the nomination criterion. Otherwise its a case of "I want to delete articles [1 through 100] on the basis that some are plot summary, others unsourced, and various miscellaneous reasons including any or all of the ones listed in deletion policy." DGG (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,these articles are dissimilar--some are human characters, some are robots, some are weapons. These need to be considered separately. I think there is a much stronger consensus to redirecting or keeping articles of characters than on plot accessories. DGG (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject out of hand --Kiz o r 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject out of hand There isn't enough similarity, and the list is too broad to be a valid combined AFD. And DGG is right, concensus is usually to merge/redirect anyway. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Improper bundling, articles should be relisted separately. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2008 (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.