Deletion of Starship Enterprise

Comment: and '''Comment''': Okay... so I agree at this point it is . However, if RX-78 does get delete, it does prove that such action is valid. I apologize for the inconvience, but from our point of view, Star trek is as much cruff as Gundam. either both can coexist, or both can't. In fact, in Japan, more people know about Gundamthan Star Trek... you know, the whole worldview thing, so honestly, I am real pissed at Gundam being targeted simply because it's not "notable" in Western world. Once again, I hope that the Gundam articles will not get shot down left and right, else next time it's done here, it's no longer a , but by a precedent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: and preferably delete the |disruptive user
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: as above.  Seriously,  is an important guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: explicit  violation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The nominator has quite clearly announced his intention to violate  here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gundam&diff=prev&oldid=100347985
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Even if you can ignore  and , this is an article on a (if not the) common element in an entire realm of fiction which spans almost 50 years, countless mediums and has been the subject of relatively innumerable articles in third-party sources, many in respectable and reputable mainstream publications.  Properly source, properly justified for notability.  Written in an out-of-universe perspective, no less.  The article should be kept indefinitely and the nominator should be drawn and quartered.  (In a figurative, Wikipedia-esque sense, of course
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:POINT)

Comment: Violation of  by nominator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRX-78_Gundam&diff=100402194&oldid=100375986 this edit. The nominator directly copies the nomination text from another AFD he disagrees with. (Actually the Star Trek Enterprise article is significantly better than the original version of the Gundam robot article in the other afd, so the nomination doesnt even make much sense - the star trek article here avoids the non-real-world perspective to a much more satisfactory extent for instance, and also has significantly better though not great referencing, and it avoids being a dumping ground for a mountain of fancruft the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RX-78_Gundam&oldid=99508629 original Gundam robot article was
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Disruptive Afd, violation of . Requiring cleanup is not a valid deletion reason. '''thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Frankly, I don't understand the rush to speedy keep. A lousy article is a lousy article is a lousy article. Being related Star Trek does not give it an ''automatic exemption'' from Wikipedia guidelines for  and . And if no one is interested in getting it up to standard, it should just be deleted without prejudice. The nomination is correct. In fact, if the original AFD is withdrawn, I will be reinstating it; and it won't be tainted by  and it will be a good faith nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:POINT)