Deletion of List of Universal Century technology

Comment: per Wikipedia:Notability. Sources are all primary and I fear that the article contains a great deal of |original research and yn|synthesis. It's also the type of article that doesn't help the reader understand the fictional work. Instead, it slamming them with technobabble
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:S)

Comment: PLEASE '''define''' ''why magazine sources are primary''. If you cannot do so, your arguments are faulty at best and does not show any willingness to discuss and fall into the category of ,  and  since you don't read the discussion before you ''vote'' and per , this is NOT a vote but a discussion. Magazines and their special editions like appendices from third party publications and editorials ARE secondary sources, and reliable per .  All of the arguments here are simply western biased or I should say biased because of users do not know the magazines published in Japan.(And a fact is that at least one of the magazine sources listed a magazine that is publishing in North America
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:CRUFTCRUFT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: In-universe.  states that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." This article about fiction is in no way encyclopedic, and no sources are possible to find to assert that "Universal City technology" has any reception, impact, or significance to the real world. The article itself admits that "Although most can argue fictional technologies carry no real-life impact, these technologies are referred to in almost all of the series of Universal Century."  The "references" all have to do with the game, no ''independant'' references can be found to assert why this technology is notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)