Deletion of SDF-1 Macross

Comment: Tainted, lol. There is nothing wrong with proper anvass|canvassing. It helps get as much editors as possible to an afd
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: though notability of these topics are dubious and they're like 80% plot summary, it doesn't appear like you tried to challenge the notability before taking the articles to AfD.  Personally I think most the plot should be cut from these articles and to merge them down to fewer articles or to parent articles; but this looks like the case of taking articles to AfD without trying alternate solutions first.  AfD is supposed to be the last resort.  Also: @Dandy I'm not sure  applies here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: per Dandy Sephy.  The SDF-1 and most of these vehicles were covered in independent derivative works (Robotech (role-playing game)) by Palladium Books and Robotech (novels)|novels in the 1980's, all based on the original manga and long since out of print.  Agree that there's generally no need for this raft of articles, which should be intelligently merged, nor is there a need for the huge, detailed plot summaries.  Nothing against transwiki'ing these as they are, but many of these are genuinely notable fictional elements per , and should be kept as redirects
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Excessively lengthy, excessively |crufty articles about minor aspects of a fictional world. It is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to provide so much |unsourced detail on non-|notable fictional elements; there's Wikia for that. A merge is not appropriate because unsourced information should be deleted rather than stashed away in other articles- presenting the information correctly would mean sourcing it and rewriting it, and if you're going to do that you might as well do it from scratch in the merge target rather than putting it in a bad article and ''then'' merging
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: None of these is notable ''in the real world'', which is what Wikipedia's articles are judged by; they are all excessively in-universe and should be transwiki'd to the appropriate wiki.  We need reliable sources showing that these subjects are notable in themselves, since notability isn't inherited from the parent article. I quote : ''Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.''  If this doesn't apply to these articles, what does it apply to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: This is an important cultural symbol and franchise marker in japan, it is on the same level as the Enterprise, argumbly more used than the Galactica, and yet nominated? The others need to be listed but this is just the determinist  at work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: SDF-1 Macross. Calling the SDF Macross unnotable is like proposing Starship Enterprise for deletion for the same thing,  or not. I agree the page is in need of showing the notability, but it really is a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. The same possibly extends to VF-1 Valkyrie. These two articles should not be part of any mass deletion process, and the sources most definately exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: unnotable fictional vehicles and other fictional elements. Fails  and OT, with no significant coverage from reliable sources on any real-world aspect of these vehicles/items
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: and I did check them all). Woeful failure to meet any reasonable inclusion criteria other than . These are non-notable in the extreme and unverified other than by primary sources (and I loved the refs to ja:wp). People, such cruft hurts Wikipedia; please stop degrading the project with such dross — this is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not. nb: I specifically endorse the comments by Reyk and recommend them to others. From a few further peeks about, there are many more 'articles' in the navbox that should not be here either; Lisa Hayes, for example — next batch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)