Deletion of GAT-01 Strike Dagger

Comment: Anthem, your particular behaviour and attitude is exactly what spawned the AfD from hell.  Your single-manned repeated refusal to accept sources being reliable does not mean they are not.  There are no reliable sources for almost all anime, manga, comic, fictional stories with your standard for sources.  Newtype is one of the most prominent anime magazines in Japan, other magazines listed are also very dominant as well.  Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources yourself: ''Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.''  Your claim of consensus can change is not only theoretical, but also proves your failure to respect wikipedia's consensus, at least in this particular process.  If you have problem with the reliability of sources that passed RSN, you should bring it up there instead of refusing to accept the current consensus just on the basis of "it can change".  It shows your  stance pretty much to the book.  You kept saying others have to prove it reliable, yet you provide no standard and you have no authority and knowledge in this particular field to judge.  Also, the burden of providing a rigid standard that meets wikipedia policies is YOURS, you also need to prove any of the sources you claim to be not reliable as questionable sources as ''Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions''.  The sources listed are seldom poor reputed and is generally accepted in the community, thus it is you that are making the accusation, and as the accuser, you need to prove your view.  Also, you need to prove that consensus has indeed changed as it is your claim, when past consensus speaks otherwise, you also need to prove the magazines reprint plot details, since very obviously the ones using them as sources will very likely say it is not the case.  Your last two reply up there is really just , which sounded really rude and disrespect of wikipedia's policy on consensus and others, which, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to change the closing admin's view on the issue, if not discrediting your attitude and became less favour to your views.  If you are not going to accept anything at all, we get your point, you got your point across, VERY WELL, so let us get to something more constructive instead of having the delusion of conceiving any hope of convincing the inconvincible, and have another train wreck discussion of us facing the wall which nothing gets through to your side yet you keep replying things stating you are not going to take any point at all, you can just save your replies unless you have something new to say.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|signed comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)