Deletion of CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

Comment: I'm unsure. fD states "To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to "bundle" all of them together into a single nomination". I obviously wasn't going to create multiple AfD pages, so I adhered to this, but putting a notice on every single page seemed a daunting task. I went ahead with one page, and fortunately Wafulz mended my mistakes. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: No matter your qualms with the ''procedural'' value of this nomination, there have been no arguments made that successfully defend against the charges leveled by the nominator. The current poll of votes shows 16-19 "keep" votes, but digging beyond the numbers game reveals a clearer picture of what's going on here. Eight keep votes reflect reservations about the way the articles were nominated, and say nothing about the content of the articles. Four "keep" votes are simple  statements. Another "keep" vote is a regurgitation of the "worse articles exist, therefore this should be kept" fallacy. That means that 68.42 percent of the keep voters are ignoring the actual policy arguments, and chasing their tails in some rhetorical netherworld instead. It is my sincerest hope that the closing administrator realizes this. How on Earth is information like the following a worthy inclusion to the encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Edit conflict)I think these articles are fairly well written and if i wanted information on this stuff, I would more than likley come to Wikipedia. In that case, for me personally, I believe the article should stay per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per the excellent and thorough nomination, which points out numerous policies that these articles violate.  A vote to keep is a vote to reject  and : good luck with that.Given that the information all exists elsewhere, a mass deletion will not destroy anything in any case. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: It is possible some articles must be joined, some even must be revived either into collections or article (Such as TS-MA2 Mobius article), and some other must be kept. I against mass deletions per nom above. Other had been discussed above. I am using ,  based on rationale: if you put infos into one page, it would be an "explosion". Gundam articles (included Cosmic Era related articles) has deep background story which is useful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: These pages violate  a list of indiscriminate information, per nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per very good nomination. Mass AfDs are not often appropriate, but they are here, as all nominated articles do suffer from the same problems, and individual discussions would be process for process' sake. Just for completeness' sake, although not really a reason to delete, these articles also violate 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF)

Comment: and nominate individually or at least in smaller groups.  These kind of blanket nominations are bound to end up deleting many worthwhile articles, resulting in another  fiasco like Esoteric Programming Languages. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: I have marked each individual article for deletion, so the argument of only one being marked is now officially out the window. In the process, I also got to look at them all, and I've surmised that all of them are basically an extension/copy/mirror of http://www.mahq.net/, which is not allowed. No sources = |unverifiable, and as it stands, the articles are really caving in to undue weight. Take it to some other wiki/website please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)