Deletion of Guardian Units of Nations (2nd nomination)

Comment: Users interested in making this article |WAF-compliant can have it userfied. Until then, I don't see a need for an article that's about one-half redundant plot summary, one-third blatant violations of  (the "GUN Army" and "Bases" sections) and the remainder exceedingly minor details
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF||WP:VGSCOPE)

Comment: but also favour '''delete'''. I for once agree whole-heartedly with TTN's actions. His merge was reasonable given the |notability, OT#PLOT|plot repetion |game guide problems, but reverted by certain other editor with who has made cleanup awkward on more than one occassion, who in this instance has utterly failed to |assume good faith, instead threatening to tell an admin he knows. Six months has been more than enough time to try to dig up sources and prove |notability, and the best that can be presented is "a fan forum to see what fans think of the organisation", which by its very nature automatically fails ,  and . Forums are rarely reliable sources for anything, and certainly are not in this case. Development and reception information should come from reliable, secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and based on the amount of work actually given to the article after the previous AfD, I'm inclined to believe such sources do not exist
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:AFG||WP:N||WP:V||WP:SPS||WP:RS)

Comment: Nobody is expecting this to become a featured article over night. But this has had months and months to find a significant amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources. It's not a lot to ask, and yet none can be found. It's reasonable to conclude that the article inherently fails  (and  too) due to a lack of reliable third-party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per .  Too soon for another nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: if that's the best you can do, then we unfortunately have to delete, because the article will still fail  and . Fan forums fail our ERIFIABILITY policy on |self-published sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:SPS)

Comment: Despite adequate time given, the article still lacks |verification by |reliable sources.  That aside, the key point is that no reliable sources gave this subject substantial coverage, thus the subject fails |general notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm using riting about fiction guidelines. As far as I can tell, the only out-of-universe context the article has to offer is which games the group has appeared in. This can be included in the plot synopsis of those games. GUN itself hasn't been the subject of significant, reliable coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)