Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century technology

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 December 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. I'll elaborate on deletion details on the talk page, but in a nutshell, while the article is notable in-universe, there hasn't been significant coverage on it to prove the notability of the subject matter in the real world. Also, transwikiied to Gundam wiki here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century technology

I have seen some in-universe articles in my time but this really takes the biscuit - It has large sections about fictional equations (which it actually explains) and a typical piece of content is

"The Minovsky particle has near-zero rest mass - though, like any particle, its mass increases to reflect its potential or kinetic energy - and can carry either a positive or negative electrical charge. When scattered in open space or in the air, the repulsive forces between charged Minovsky particles cause them to spontaneously align into a regular cubic lattice structure called an I-field.".

All of the sources seem to be primary and I suspect (but not speaking Japanese cannot check) that it's also largely a cut and paste from those source books - the discussion on the talkpage says as much (and also mentions that the article would make no sense if written from an real world perspective!) . I don't believe that the material exists to make this an encyclopaedia article of the type that we host here. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks my heart to say this, but Delete. While the show itself is notable, This list/article is concerning something so far back, the only sources we could really get are from fansites. --Numyht (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources a referred to and subject is well established as notable by the coverage and books that discuss it. Article may need to be cleaned up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they are all primary - where is the secondary coverage? clean-up with what? to what? Gundam is clearly notable, but that doesn't mean all articles on gundam are notable, it's not inherited. I find the comment "may need to be cleaned up" laughable - have you read it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No independent sources to demonstrate the notability of this technology, and it does not inherit notability from the series of which it is a part. Powers ^T 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to Transwiki to Gundam Wiki on Wikia. Powers ^T 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While most of this article's sources are primary sources, it links to multiple articles on the Japanese wikipedia, which indicates they think the topic is rather notable and hopefully could be used to obtain more sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the .JP wikipedia's rules on notability? they can vary quite widely between projects. Notability on .wp can be entirely difference from ours. Again, Gundam is highly notable, it doesn't mean that every part of it is notable for our purposes in producing quality articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might sound weird, but wikipedia's on other languages are not reliable --Numyht (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article got at least 3 third party secondary sources, 2, 4, 5, 7 are all third party(2 and 5 are the same source) 2 and 5 are from a magazine that published in the 70~80s, 4 is a magazine that is still selling well and 7 is a news article. This would show the very basic argument of this nomination as faulty. The only equation in the article is actually a real life equation, see Nuclear fusion for the reaction equation. In fact, the article is only poorly written, and the nom does not show any regards to the first 2 paragraphs where those are actually talking about the out of universe impact on the real world. Looks like the nom simply scanned through the article and did not read it before nominating. MythSearcher^talk 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - the real world impact is WP:Syn/WP:OR not based on the sources quoted - I do read those things before noming. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' a good combination article. In articles such as this every item does not have to show notability, just be relevant content. The technology of the series is clearly a major aspect, and its good to have it brought together Dividing up content this way is a matter of editing convenience, not a matter of deletion or inclusion on the grounds of noatbilty. . A reasonable article. The material is reasonably well sourced. DGG (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's all primary - it's all in-universe, there are no secondary sources and it all seems to be cut and paste from technical manuals (as noted by the authors on the talkpage). It's completely incoherent to anyone not versed in the gundam universe. This is a good article? wow - what an eye-opener this afd is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at 2006 discussions, I have edited the page long since then to counter that. Per WP:RS, magazines and published online newspapers by major publications ARE secondary sources. They are NOT dedicated to the Gundam series and thus your arguments are incorrect. Read the first 2 paragraph and those are obviously not having the slightest chance of being cut and past from tech manuals. MythSearcher^talk 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. Sources are all primary and I fear that the article contains a great deal of original research and synthesis. It's also the type of article that doesn't help the reader understand the fictional work. Instead, it slamming them with technobabble. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, tell me which part of the magazine and online newspaper sources are primary in your Sources are all primary argument. MythSearcher^talk 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In-universe. WP:INDISCRIMINATE 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. Themfromspace (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all those who said delete 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 WP:NN, WP:CRUFTCRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT since you don't read the discussion before you vote and per WP:NOT, 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 WP:RS. 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) MythSearcher^talk 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem with the sources are that the magazines are not independant of the article's subject because they all specialize in the Gundam anime. Find some articles about Universal Century technology from sources that don't only write about Gundam. Themfromspace (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The magazines are independent of the subject, for example, the Gundam Century source is from OUT magazine, and it mainly talks about L points and electromagnetic projectiles and space colonizations and such. It is using the name Gundam in it because the anime talks about these scientific subjects and is very outstanding at the time. Having the name Gundam in it does not mean it is dependent of the subject, it only means that it is specialized in it. MythSearcher^talk 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said there was no "significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". Meaning that any secondary sources do not have in depth discussion about the fictional technology from the perspective of the real world. You must read all of WP:N, not just the secondary sources bit, as well as WP:PLOT. Jay32183 (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the perspective of the real world, which is what the sources and the two sections are talking about. It is not only important to the development of the series and other later productions, but also inspiring to the academic world. How much more independent do you want to have other than having an academy set up to thoroughly inspect the possibility of such fictional technology in the real world? MythSearcher^talk 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You still have not addressed the significant coverage issue. There is also no real world context, which you seem to be confusing with real world content. The plot information needs to support the real world information, which is not what this article does. There aren't sources with more than trivial coverage to allow the problem to be solved. Jay32183 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you are not answering the question. The sources showed enough notability that the topic is concerned by the real world enough so that an international academy is found and working, do you have an international academy working on Star wars or Star Trek technology? No, like the new source I have just added in said very clearly, to other universities, these might not be of significant, but in Japan, it is high academia. The source itself is addressing the notability issue once and for all, the other plot parts are not an issue here, but should be brought up in the talk page of the article. As long as the article is notable, it does not matter if some of the contents are not notable as long as they are of the topic. Should they be included in the article is another problem and does not support deletion arguments. MythSearcher^talk 07:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. There is no significant coverage for anything beyond plot. It doesn't matter who's publishing the real world material if there is only trivial coverage. Notable and important are not the same thing. Importance is completely irrelevant if there is no significant coverage. Universal Century technology is not notable as the is no significant coverage of real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Significant coverage means substantial coverage, not coverage that makes it seem important. Jay32183 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point, the sources are NOT about plot, but about its notability, all of them are asserting the notability of the subject in the real world, not plot summaries. Like I have asked several times, go read the first 2 sections and find the sources yourself, they are not plot summary at all, and shows that you are not discussing on topic item and kept using your own imagination or stereotyping the article before you come to vote MythSearcher^talk 05:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have read the sources (or source rather, pictures of book covers are not sources) and the non-plot sections, one of which is completely unsourced. However, they are still not enough to justify the article. Not one source establishes the notability of the Universal Century technology. There are trivial mentions of the technology, nothing of substance is discussed. The Times article doesn't discuss the technology at all. I've checked the sources, I've read the article. You need to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, all of which this article fails to meet. You've been hinging on only a part of my argument, but not the part that actually matters. Stop looking at plot, stop looking at independent. Look at significant coverage. That's what is lacking. Also, the sources cannot discuss the notability, as has been mentioned many times before notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic". Please don't take me to be some fiction hating monster. I'm a bureaucrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki and I have not only supported, but recommended the removal of Xiaolin Showdown articles from Wikipedia because they didn't comply with policy. Jay32183 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This I don't understand what your point is. The Times source included things like mega-particle cannon and At a recent symposium held by the founders of the academy and academics, there were lively discussions about emulating the protective coating which prevents the fictional battle suits burning-up on atmospheric re-entry, and the airbags that protect the pilot from the violent lurches of battle., which is related to Universal Century Technology. The sources that you did not read are stating clearly that later productions are influenced by these technologies, and produced similar writings. Gundam Century is significant enough that a magazine published a special edition book with 1/3 of it discussing about the real life technologies that are related to them, which would be worth over 2/3 magazine length if they did it within the magazine. And 27 years later, Times have an article telling you that an international academy have been set up to research on topics including these. The Gizmodo source even directly relate a current development of the JSDF with these fictional technologies, with tons of other news sites follow up the story. Like I asked, how much more significance and third party coverage do you need for an article to exist? MythSearcher^talk 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin Please consider all the arguments above and if no one answers why are magazines primary, their arguments are not fully developed and should not be considered. magazines publishing additional booklet for the topic calling them special edition is very notable in any sense per Wikipedia:Notability, and per WP:NNC, The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content. for what content should be modified, discuss in article talk page, not AfD discussion. MythSearcher^talk 07:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Newtype article only covers one little statement out of the entire article and has nothing to do with covering the fictional technology of the series. The rest of the article is based entirely on original research and primary sources. --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OUT magazine special Gundam Century and the newspaper source are not primary and OR and the Newtype source is talking about how this is earning money for the company, how can you say that it is not related to the article? MythSearcher^talk 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Century is book printed under license and is hardly independent. And I don't see a newspaper source. I do see a blog used as a source, which doesn't pass under WP:RS. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Century is NOT a book printed under license, it is from a magazine that predates the Gundam Anime and includes interviews and non-Gundam oriented topics. gizmodo is not a simple blog but a newspaper archive, use the title and you get hundreds of newspaper sites with the same news, like this one and this one. Gizmodo actually is a news provider in Japan and the blog is one of the news archive of it. MythSearcher^talk 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's printed under license. A major magazine couldn't publish all that copyrighted material if it didn't have permission. Any magazine on Gundam will either be legal and not independent, or they are independent but don't have permission. When you're looking for a third-party source, it seems like common sense that it wont have Gundam in its name. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer then delete - This info is probably useful to someone and should be preserved on the appropriate wikia site; but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even ever read Gundam Century? Those info are copyrighted to Gundam Century instead of the official company, they made it up BEFORE the company took notice to the marketing possibility of these stuff. The company endorsed the info AFTER Gundam Century got popular, and hired some of the writers of it to continue their work there. It is published in early 80's where the copyright issue is not that much of a problem then all they need to do is have an acknowledgment in the back stating the name Gundam is licensed to Sotsu Agency, especially when it is a special edition that tagged with the anime magazine and not sold independently at the time(The renewal version is sold independently since the magazine is out of business already, the difficulty of re-publishing is also addressed in the renewal version since the copyright is not from the currently existing Gundam license holder but a closed company.) The main topic that covered 1/3 of the book called Gundam science is also 100% not referring to the science in the series but real world science like all the 70's development of space colony from L5 news and powered exoskeleton, space shuttle and mass driver, etc. The word Gundam is only used in the title and the introduction stating the technology of Gundam is derived from those.(Which comes from the interview parts that cover another 1/2 of the book) The only copyrighted item might be the 4 page(out of 176) plot summary and the fictional weapons names, and the 16 page story that uses the names of the main characters in the original story, yet in Japan they have a way better system for fans to create their own doujin and thus most of these does NOT require license beforehand. Your common sense does not work in Japan and is very obviously biased by your own local law. MythSearcher^talk 07:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion reasons given under policy. Those claiming that these magazines are primary sources need to show some proof. Jtrainor (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is popped. There's plenty of Gundam articles floating around with no sources and blatant copyvio article bodies, and this perfectly well sourced and very informative one gets the chopping block? The world has gone mad. MalikCarr (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just some of Wikipedia's policies are to blame and if necessary I would say for my vote Transwiki because my belief is that articles that have verifiable through good sourcing and identifying the material deserve to be moved to another wiki site if possible rather than deleting peoples good work for trivial reasons such as nobility. Yet I am willing to choose transwiki over deletion anyday just so both sides of the conflict will get what they want. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fansite material at best; completely inappropriate to a formal encyclopedia. Lack of referencing is a major issue — this can't be cited to acceptable sources, because all the sources are primary. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 29 November 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.