Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Combat X Super Aircraft

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. Proto::► 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat X Super Aircraft[edit]

WP:NOT a game guide or game manual, indiscriminate information, fancruft. Delete DarkSaber2k 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be worth noting that the some people involved with the article are aggresively opposed to any form of editing to this article. The Kinslayer 10:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various precedents. MER-C 11:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gone from a merge to a delete eh? You guys just don't quit do you? As I recall, there was once a proposal to delete an article regarding another super plane from Ace Combat 4, the X-02 Many things were proposed including adding it to a list of all Ace Combat fictional aircraft, merging it with AC4, and just Keeping it. The result was a "Keep, no consensus".

Now perhaps you people don't care but I know when I was a new fan I looked everywhere for information regarding this Fictional plane becasue I thought it was real and wanted to learn more about it, and I know I'm not the only one, had there been a Wikipedia article about it at the time it would have made things a LOT easier. They used to have indevidual articles for these aircraft but people argued there wasnt enough info to make one article so they combined them all into one, the one that is now being proposed to be deleted entirely.

Oh, and The Kinslayer "some people involved with the articles" dislike it when other people who know absolutely nothing about the subject make massive deleations to them. Cbale2000 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose somone who has followed the series since the first game would know absolutely nothing about it wouldnt they? Maybe you should stop trying to make comments about people you know absolutely nothing about.The Kinslayer 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't naming names, I was just generalizing becasue I know there are people who haven't followed the series are also some of the people making radical changes. Cbale2000 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil when participating in AFD debates. No one owns an article on Wikipedia and anyone is free to make radical changes to article or nominate an article for deletion. "No concensus (default to) keep" means precisely that there was no concensus to do anyting with the article and it. Articles with this outcome are often re-nominated (usually after a month's waiting period) to help find a concensus. If you are concerned about the need for information on this fictional plane needing a home somewhere on the internet, are there no other wikis that would accept the info? A CVG Wiki? A project on Wikia? You could start one and expand the series without having to worry about Wikipedia's Fictional content guidelines or Fictional style guidelines. --Kunzite 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- WanCC 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look the article is not "a game guide or game manual, indiscriminate information, fancruft." it is a wikipedia article that gives people information on the super aircraft of the game give me an example of this. Also what the hell is fancruft. Also do any of you even have the game and know about the aircraft.Sam ov the blue sand 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC) A true Hebro[reply]

It doesn't matter if we own the game or not. We're discussing the article about the game and not the game itself. Some have suggested that this article goes into so much minute detail that it violates core Wikipedia content policies. Since you asked: "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking." (See:WP:FANCRUFT for more info. There are several guidelines and policies which relate to the term. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, General Notability, Fiction Notability, and Writing about fiction. --Kunzite 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ace Combat X Super Aircraft per WP:FICTION for now. (If the entire series or articles on fictional airplanes was put up for deletion, I'd vote transwiki/delete because of the previously mentioned precendent. One by one AFDs often lead to confusing and uneven enforcement of policy.) The target article is very light on substance. (It has one large table a few paragraphs of text.) X-02 Wyvern, ADF-01 Falken, and XFA-27 should be summarized on the page. Fenrir (Ace Combat) should be merged to the page. All of them need to have the game guide elements removed. (i.e. "Unlocking"). --Kunzite 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGH WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE NOT GET!!! it is not fancruft, and don't give me policies I've already read over and over, and you still have yet to give me any examples as to what you mean, most of the unlocking parts have been taken out. And Fenrir is a super weapon, not a part of a damn main article plus if we were to merge it, it would look like the most freakin long and retarded looking article I've ever written and I've written some pretty long articles.Sam ov the blue sand 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC) A true Hrebro[reply]

Civility, please.

Have any of your "pretty long articles" gone over the size limits? The merge point article that I suggested is rather small in size. There is no reason not to merge it per the Fiction guidelines. In fact, those guidelines say that an article on this should not be split up unless an encyclopedic treatment of the article is made. That means citing sources outside of the primary.

Anyway: In-universe statement: "It is believed that the XR-45 Cariburn may be a very early prototype of what will one day evolve into Neucom Inc's Radical- series aircraft, the R-101, R-102, and R-103." It is believed is a weasel statement. Just who believes this? Why do we care jets follow its design path? What impact does it have outside of the plotline of the game? This is very much like "cruft" ... it's the gunk that builds up in atticles. It's very much centered to fans of the game. People who don't know what the game is should be able to read the sentece and understand the context and the reasoning for things.

"The materials which it is created out of and how it is structured make it very cost effective, reliable and easy to maintain on the frontlines." Why do we care that it is cost effective and easy to maintain? Is it part of the game play? You walk a fine line here, though... you could easily go into gameplay.

"The YR-302 is the first aircraft of it's size to use a pheonominal four jet engine system, rather than the typical one or two. The Fregata is the first Fighter jet in history to use this four engine system. It's role is said to be ground attack, though it is capable of operating at ultra-high altitudes." Again, this is totally in-universe. It's got a lot of hyperbole in it too. Who says its role is in ground attack? Actually, the more I analyze these, the more I lean toward outright deletion. It seems to be entirely in-universe. --Kunzite 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it is all in the game if you would have the game you would know that but since you don't have the game I guess you wouldn't know that. And the design concept is plot related showing that each of the games interlink within each other to make a story line. I have no clue how pheonominal got in there but it will be removed. And the rest is in the games and is plot related. I rest my case. Any other questions?Sam ov the blue sand 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ace Combat X ...a crappy crufty article was the FA a couple of days ago. Anyway, since there's no hope of it being kept due to the opposition here, I'm in favor of a merge.

I agree on torchic, how thw hell did that thing become a FA? Anyways no its not its 2 to 2 to 2 pretty even if you ask me.Sam ov the blue sand 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume because it has so many references. But still, the topic is even more crufty than this. Zaku Two 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah huh... you lost me there, (were you talking about Torchic or somthing else) is that Keep, Delete, or a Merge?Sam ov the blue sand 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ace Combat X, which already has a list of Aircrafts. Tonytypoon 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya I made that list and it only has a list not a detailed summary of the aircraft in the list so that wouldn't work too well.Sam ov the blue sand 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With some difficulty, I can overlook all the superfluous apostrophes; but delete this thing as something even less than a plot summary. Phrased more grandly, this is merely within-fiction stuff. -- Hoary 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it violates wikipedia's manual of style by not taking a "out of universe" perspective (see WP:WAF). Notability is also highly questionable. A short list of planes, and relevant descriptions MAY be suitable for the main article, but this completely misses the mark and is unsuitable for merging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

hey instead of deletion how about helping me with the article and revert the crap you're talking about because I need examples and no ones giving me any so what the hell am I fix if you don't give me examples. Man you guys don't even give it a chance for retribution.Sam ov the blue sand 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I created Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft article to correct the mistakes done here.Sam ov the blue sand 16:46, 28 December 2006 (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.