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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krogoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, uncited original research and chock-full of in-game references unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pretty sure individual RTS units don't fall within WP:VGSCOPE, e.g. excessive detail. Nifboy (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Only source is insufficient. Randomran (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (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.