Deletion of List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units

Comment: Lists like this, as has already been said many times, are standard practice for mecha anime. The mecha are by definition an important part of any mecha anime, but the main article would get way too bloated if they were listed there.  is what this nomination seems to be about, and that's not a good reason to delete. No, contrary to what many deletionists seem to think, is the fact that the article needs cleanup a reason to get rid of it. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The use of this list to contain entries for multiple linked anime/manga series suggests to me that its presence as a stand-alone list (rather than being merged into the relevant character list sections, the other option) is warranted as a means of minimizing duplicated coverage. Cleanup of jargon and  violation can be done as needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF)

Comment: per items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: Fails |notability due to a lack of independent and reliable sources. An in-universe article going into far too much detail about fictional devices mentioned only in the fictional work or other woeks from the franchise owner. Much of the article appears to be |original research. That said, a list is far preferable to separate stub articles on each gizmo mentioned in a body of fictional work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: Well, the article looks less crufty now but the core issue remains that it is all original research as it stands and there are no secondary sources to demonstrate the subject as standalone notable outside the main article and in the real world. I appreciate the argument that the serious is notable and hiving off these bits keeps the article clearer but the fact remains that despite many arguments to keep no sources that discuss the suits have been put forward and that the core notability of the subjectr has not been established in the |usual way. I'm still waiting on sources and although they have been asserted, they have not been produced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: That's why we have Wikia.  still stands, and so does 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Looking over the article's references, numbers two and three appear to be licensed/official sites, and the fourth one is used as the basis for |original research. The first one, based on its usage, seems to just list who designed each of these robots. While their names should be listed in the primary article as being part of the artistic team, I don't think that merits a whole article. There is similar precedent regarding TV episodes, which must have more than a listing of cast and crew.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Why would "normal people" (who aren't Gundam fans) be reading this? As far as I can tell the only people for whom this would be valuable would be Gundam fans. This really belongs on a Gundam wiki (yay Wikia), not here. Also, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)