Deletion of Universal Century technology

Comment: The article currently includes at least 7 |reliable and |verifiable secondary sources.(1 quite strange soruce in the talk page was exculded from the article)  The article got quite a lot of new sources that is different from the last deletion and a proposal of deleting the lengthy list was given, it was being cleaned up and the only thing left is deleting the long list of items below, it is not performed yet simply because some of it is notable(AMBAC, Minovsky particle, Mega particle cannon and Funnels, each of these have citations maybe except the Minovsky particle for now).  The last AfD said it is not notable out-universe, yet the current article quotes The Times and various other sources stating the topic's notability in the real world, including an ''International Academy of Gundam'' was established, the AMBAC was used in other franchises (Macross) and real life robots was inspired by these.  Furthermore, it is also a secondary source that said the series adapted real life technology thus making it an academic material.  I can present a few new sources here as well, that are 3 books called ''When SF overtakes Science'' (Japanese), ''Mobile Suit Epoch'' (1 & 2 Chinese, independently published) it mentioned the Universal Century quite a few times for its space colony, directed energy weaponry, robot technology and such.  I can understand that the article is long and over detailed, it is also quoting a lot of non-English sources due to its Japanese nature and many of the secondary sources uses the name Gundam or Universal Century in the title to make them clear of what they are talking about and confuse a lot of foreigners that they are primary sources.  Yet these should not be used to distract the point that reliable, verifiable secondary sources do exist, and the directory status of the article is not a concern of the  (notability only concern's the article, not the contents).  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|signed comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: That would be something that should be brought up in the article talk page, not an AfD, isn't it?  Actually, since the talk page consensus is removing the lengthy list, you might as well be  and remove it yourself(and maybe leaving the sourced sections/sentences).  I don't see moving it to AfD without actually trying to contribute to the article while claiming it can be real and notable.  For the time issue, I will have to admit that I have been really busy and most of the sources and work on the alleged  articles of the said project are produced by me, and while others might support my work in some clean up, I have to from time to time engage in long and tedious AfDs. I will remove the list now, to show that it could be and would be done in order to save the article.(And also include the sources I brought up here)  However, please be patient while the grammar and spellings might be terrible since not much time was given for me to translate the sources and include Japanese quotations since I type Japanese really slow due to the fact that I do not know how to pronounce a lot of kanji(but my Chinese background allowed me to be able to read and understand most of them).  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|signed comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:NN)