Deletion of Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (2nd nomination)

Comment: After wading through all the sources given above, I find enough of them are third-party sources that specifically discuss the ship (as opposed to the work), its development, political importance, and influence to demonstrate the ship is |notabile. Plus there's Gelmax's articles, which no one seems to have noted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The nominator refusing to acknowledge that sources exist is not the same as there being no sources. Likewise, the nominator saying that he didn't bother to put forth any effort to verify the sources I listed but that he thinks without looking at them that they probably don't exactly apply is not the same as those sources not addressing the article content. The bibliography I provided was a bibliography for ''information on the series' ships''. Essentially, I am contending that the sources used by a site with indepth information on this ship discuss the ship in detail, and the nominator's response (and thus the entire reason for relisting a clearly notable and proven to be notable subject) is that the ''titles'' of the sources in question do not explicitly state that they do, and therefore they must not (despite all evidence to the contrary). It's a major element of a thirty-eight year old anime, most sources are going to be in books and probably in Japanese, and you're not going to get very far relying on Google without utilizing critical thinking skills. And before someone brings it up, no, we don't have to have access to these specific sources for the article to be kept - finding sources that specifically discuss the battleship itself are just required for |notability; the content requirements for |verifiability are less strict and can probably be fulfilled. If the notability requirements applied to verifiability as well, the article would be unsalvagable because we'd have to rely on inaccessible and unobtainable sources, but that's not the case. Also, just curious, what do the nom and those arguing "merge" think of the main Space Battleship Yamato article? I was surprised it avoided this blitz of pointy AfDs given how poorly sourced it was. If you don't intend to AfD it, why not? This isn't really leading into a point or anything, it's just genuine curiosity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I took a look at the single source you provided at the first AfD, and it is a fan site. It does nothing to establish notability.   and  demand ''reliable'' secondary sources, which that fan site fails because it is nothing like "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: or merge. Completely in universe style and full of POV forks. Fails  and . No citations and one source. Not enough to confirm any notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: unnotable fictional element that has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources to have a standalone article. No evidence of such coverage, with entire article seeming to be a blend of plot and . Fails , , and . An unverifiable list of "sources" on a fansite do not establish any sort of notability at all. Its relation to the series is irrelevant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N||WP:WAF||WP:PLOT)