Deletion of Knightmare Frame

Comment: Bad faith nomination per oint
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: no significant coverage by |reliable |verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any sort of |notability. As it stands, the whole article is an excessive plot summary that fails #PLOT by being entirely in-universe
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:NOT)

Comment: None of collectonian's points are not valid.First: Anything can be summed up in two to three sentences, but that does not mean it does not deserve its own article. Knightmare frames are different from other mechas and deserve to be detailed, in both its history and its different models, much like the Chicago White Sox deserve to be detailed in its history and its players. If there was only a summary in Major League Baseball, that the Chicago White Sox are an American league baseball team that plays in Chicago, then this Encyclopedia would be a laughing stock. There has been numerous precedent in WIkipedia regarding vehicles like the Knightmare Frame for both fictional and non-fictional work that support this , meaning that there is a wide consensus among editors that this is acceptable.Second: All articles regarding fictional work have to have references to the plot of said work to show how it is relevant, so references to the plot is expected. This article is more than a plot summery. It contains information that is not in the plot, and details specifications of specific Knightmare frames and the ways they are related.Third. According to #Plot, it states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." Because this anime is relatively new, it does not have as many third party sources detailing it. Some of the information is detailed from specific episodes and some are from imagines of magazines. Each of these is able to be referenced. To be able to add the information needed to support the article, editors use such referancable material because there is a lack of third party sources that fit the letter of the rules. This is in the spirit of the rules. There is numerous precedent of support this throughout hundreds if not thousands of articles in this encyclopedia, which shows a general consensus among editors that when there is a lack of sources that fit exactly the letter of the rules, using other sources that are able to be referenced and are relatively reliable, fits the spirit of the rules
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per nomination, mostly  (very little of this content is sourced) and #PLOT (huge amount of in-universe information with no demostrable relevance in the real world); also indicates a fanboyish zeal for collecting cruft that reflects badly on Wikipedia as a project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOT)