Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cosmic Era mobile units

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 no consensus. CitiCat^♫ 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cosmic Era mobile units

Indiscriminate list of weapons in comic. More suitable for a anime wiki, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After most of the individual MS/MA pages of CE were deleted why do you want to delete the last page on which they are listed? Diabound 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Gundam world items. While I respect that someone is interested in what appears to be a very detailed fictional universe, there is a limit to how much an encylopedia should be inclusive of fantasy rather than reality. There are other websites, besides Wikipedia, that can host something of such unlimited magnitude, and such limited interest. Mandsford 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like cars from Need for Speed are not appropriate for WP, I believe neither is this. Make pages for units that have real world coverage, and put them in a category, but not make a directory of all the fictional units on a TV show Corpx 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Need for Speed (video game) quite clearly describes several cars in the game. I don't know if it's complete, but it's there. Need for Speed II Car section is also present, but seems broken. Several of the others have a barebones description which I consider close to useless. And of course, several of the cars do have articles, but then, they exist in the real world, something not true of any actual Gundams (the closest exceptions being theme park models, not working ones...) FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any mentions are kept inside the article, where its an editorial decision, rather than ported over to a new page. Cars exist in the real world, but in game statistics are not always applicable to the real world. If anyone cares to Merge all this back into the main article, you have my support. Corpx 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, we can show that the television show is notable. This is a significant aspect of that show, often covered in material about the show. Thus some coverage of it is appropriate. Really, notability isn't a magic button you can wave and say "But this isn't notable" when in fact, there are nuances to consider. Especially with regards to fictional concepts. And in this case, there are the Gundam Technical Manuals to consider. Clearly out of universe, and clearly about this particular concept. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the television show is notable does not mean this is. Notability is not inherited. And as I said in another AFD further down the page, the guidebooks are irrelevant. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the problem with throwing out Wikilinks is that they tend to leave out the substantial argument directly on the subject. Not always necessary, but in this case, I do wish to see that. Certainly notability isn't *always* inherited, but there *are* times it is. This is one of those times as the Mobile units of the series do merit coverage as they are featured on toys, plastic models, video games, at amusement parks, and yes, in out-of-universe books that can be purchased to inform people interested in the series about the existing concepts in the show. Sorry, but your argument is unpersuasive, as it's clear to me that an effective article on the show would cover the mobile units to some extent. To do otherwise would be quite incomplete. These articles exist not on their own independent merits so much as a way to adequately describe the show itself. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the entire series itself centers around the use of mobile suits in war. To suggest then that mobile suits do not inherit the notability of a show that has them in its title and centers around them would seem odd. It's kind of like saying the Stargate device isn't notable even though it's used as the name for at least three different series and at this point three movies and serves as the major plot device. Z98 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As an alternative solution to deleting this article, it could be merged with Cosmic Era, as it deals specifically with technology from that Era, or with all of the other Mobile Suit lists to form one single list with separate sections for each Era. As FrozenPurpleCube said, Mobile Suits are the central concept of the entire Gundam metaseries. As such, the information about the Gundam universe would be incomplete without information about the Mobile Suits. -Rycr 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, per my comments in the other Gundam AfDs started by the same user. Jtrainor 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate', incorrectly claims the subject only occurs in a comic and it gives no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted [1] is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor. If bad faith is still in question, the fact that some rationales include such lines as "delete more Gundam world items" ought to show the motives of those in question. Ugh... I'm so tired of Wikidrama by now... MalikCarr 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally every other Gundam series has a list similar to this. Also, the Gundam franchise isn't the only ones to have lists like this. We also have pages similar to this in the Stargate, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Honorverse (Honor Harrington series) categories. To suggest that somehow this page is not appropriate would mean all of those also should be removed. If we followed that kind of policy, a substantial fraction of Wikipedia would need to be deleted. Let's be realistic here. The reason a lot of people come to Wikipedia is because this kind of information is present. Z98 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the policy at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) isn't going to be followed, I rather wish some folk would campaign to get it revised then. Would avoid a lot of unnecessary AFD's being raised.--Oscarthecat 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I became an Inclusionist because I dislike nobility and all the unnecessary conflict it is bringing to Wikipedia and that I believe that verifiablity issues is a better rationale for AFD nominations because of original research or speculation concerns. -Adv193 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lists are the best way to treat individually non-notable mecha. --Polaron | Talk 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree that these lists display details for mecha that are do not deserve their own articles. I must also state for all Gundam deletion nominations that if they are deleted from Wikipedia then they should be Trans-Wikied straight to the Gundam Wiki page where other previously deleted content had been sent to. -Adv193 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to further note that without exception, EVERY Gundam-related page that has been deleted and later had an attempt at re-creation with a new article was speedied and then protected to prevent recreation. Jtrainor 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Ugh that is bad and I get the feeling if any strategic attempt regardless towards redoing the style of a recreated page to avoid fully recreating the plot in a single profile, or avoiding defining weapons or abilities in the mobile suit to avoid copyright MAHQ.net files, then it will truly be a world of hurt for the people trying to recreate and reformat those articles to avoid the same qualification for an AFD nomination. But seriously is there a way to recreate a file in a way to avoid similarities to MAHQ.net. -Adv193 02:04, 28 August 2007 (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.