The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This. Is. FANCRUFT. Sandstein 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka vs Rei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic fails the general notability guideline. Specific commentary on a particular character in the series should be directed to that character's main page (or list item). Izno (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT. Little-to-no actual real life analysis from reliable sources. Probably at best belongs on the Evangelion Wiki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a bad attempt at a joke that has stayed around a bit too long. If it weren't for the fact that its initial creator appears to be an active and productive member of our community, it would probably have fallen under G3 or A7 a long time ago. I'm not even sure if it doesn't still qualify for one of those criteria, but since we have an AfD open, I'll refrain from tagging it as such.
  The entire history of the page is somewhat bizarre, considering that its original creator redirected it, only to revert himself shortly thereafter. I would like to point out that one of the other contributors to the article was involved in a paid editing scheme that was terminated due to COI issues. Though I can't really conceive of any particular interest the article would serve, it does strike me as something to keep in mind.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not wrong there Ipatrol, so I'm not going to vote to keep. This definitely wasn't a paid article though :P (all my paid articles can be found at User:Ethanbas/Paid articles; it's too bad the project was shut down). Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I didn't really see it as likely that this was a paid article. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of reliable third-party sources; no evidence that this meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the existence of Tony DiNozzo and Ziva David. Why can that article exist while this one gets deleted? :P Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL: List of supercouples and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_duos

  Please let my article live :'( Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That one clearly demonstrates notability (though one might also reasonably treat it as WP:CRUFT). This one does not now. There might be some reasonable spinoff to Neon Genesis Evangelion that tends toward discussing the relationships, but that's not this article today nor can it really ever be. This one is also basically a failure of WP:NPOV. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You might also review WP:OSE. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it can be valued by cult followers as many other articles on Wikipedia are.Wikisanchez (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT. For the "keep" voters, I propose that you cite third-party, reliable sources that indicate that this has notability. I do not see any strong arguments from the "keep" votes, and proving coverage is always the best way to go in proving notability in my opinion. I would imagine that this topic can be covered in the articles on the individual characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fine for a fan wiki, but not for here. Even if there were reliable, third-party sources about it, I can't see how there could be enough material to warrant a separate article, as opposed to a few sentences at Neon Genesis Evangelion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. How the heck did this slip under everyone's noses for over a year? —Farix (t | c) 23:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient evidence of independent notability. There are plenty of "this vs that" with regards to characters in countless series, there's no reason this should get special treatment._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is WP:FANCRUFT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ that drive-by vandalism Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pointless fancruft. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.