Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:39, 17 January 2007

AMX-104 R-Jarja

Actually, this is part of a larger AfD i would like to create, but its beyond any practical abilities to do so: I would like to nominate all the articles in the following template: {{Template:Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. I see no reason why all these random suits of armor from a fictional series should have their own articles. Merge at the very least. I know this is 'poor reasoning', but if lists of weapons in halo 2 and every other game shouldn't and no longer exist, this shouldn't either. Non-notable even with association. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: In response to this AfD another user set up a similar AfD here. It may be helpful to review details of both cases, in the hopes of establishing precedent. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although my opinion probably doesn't matter. It was on the most wanted list, for Christ's sake! --Shady Tree Man 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion does matter, though you must use reasoning to support your arguments. How exactly, is it notable to have every Gundam ever seen, each with its own article? How are they that important to the series? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're notable to the series because they're the foundation the series is built on. Without Gundams, the series would just be people yelling at each other. --Shady Tree Man 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without starships, Star Trek would just be people emoting at each other. But after forty years of TV and cartoon TV and movies and hundreds of books and fan magazines and conventions, there's only one starship from that series that is notable enough to be recognized by the general public: the USS Enterprise. I know the Gundam stuff is relatively big-name compared to most anime, but it's no Star Trek or Pokemon, is it? Why should non-fans be convinced that any Gundam fighting suit, let alone every one, is notable enough to pass general WP standards, just because the series is? Merge into one list per WP:FICT. I would say "delete" except that the suits (as a category, not every one) are the premise of the whole thing. Barno 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the general public would recognize the Borg Cube, Klingon and Romulan Birds of Prey, and maybe a few others. I do agree one list would be a better idea in this case. Mister.Manticore 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use the Star Trek example, are you suggesting every one of the [1] should be deleted or merged into one article? I don't think we should have different standards for different fandoms. Edward321 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to "have different standards for different fandoms" because of the general standard that more widely noted topics, those with more cultural influence, should be covered in more detail. I don't think every one of the ships in that category merits its own article in WP, but some do, simply because they've been featured in multiple third-party independent verifiable sources, not just fan-fiction, fan-obsessive-detail-suit-specs, and corporate promotional tie-ins with other products. Barno 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying the reason for the difference is popularity? How do we measure that? Should Wilkie Collins and Bret Harte be deleted because the majority of Wikipedians have never heard of either author, let alone read their works?

Do we take into account people whose first language is not English when assessing popularity? A Japanese science fiction fan would react to this suggested deletion much like an American science fiction fan would react to the suggested deletion of the Starship Enterprise articles. Or don’t their opinions matter, since this is the English language part of Wikipedia?

I expect you are correct that the majority of information and commentary on Gundam comes from either fans, the creators, or promoters. How is this different from Star Trek, Star Wars, or Dr. Who? Given five days, how many cited references to the Enterprise, the X-Wing, or the Tardis could you find, especially if you were not allowed to cite either the creators, promoters, or the fans? Edward321 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Barno, no significance outside the series is asserted. Daniel J. Leivick 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, this is ridiculous. No sources. No listing of even what episode or manga or whatever it appeared in. It's nothing but a page of made up stats. This is NOT an encyclopedia article, and tagging it for cleanup isn't going to make it one. If the rest of the articles in the Template are this bad, they need to be burnt with fire. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yzak Jule 07:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, then ~~Delete~~ per nom. But make sure they're actually transwikied this time. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia. I would recommend not to bother with transwiki - a) nobody will do it, and b) the information is almost certainly already on the gundam wiki. Proto::► 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Copy/paste) Delete; Transwiki to some sort of Gundam-themed Wikia if one exists. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need for an article on every single Mobile Suit in the Gundam universes. Wikipedia should only have articles on major mobile suits, and not utilize a template that fills up most of a computer screen, one with a resolution of 1920x1200 like my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and most of the other articles of this kind. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could advise the group of editors on how to set up their own wiki? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. All this rubbish needs to go out the window. MER-C 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Barno. There is no need to create a separate article for every fictional machine ever shown in Gundam, especially if the articles only list the tech specs. JIP | Talk 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that it would be useful as a list of all the minor Gundams, people often come to Wikipedia to find such things that they couldn't otherwise find all together in one place, and "cruft" or not, since there's at least the source of the TV show, I don't see why it would hurt to have one list of these. J0lt C0la 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I'd say merge into a list (and I do support the idea of a list of these mechas), but in this case, I see nothing we can really merge. The article isn't sourced, and when I say "list of mechas", that doesn't include information like "Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 16200 kg, 5 x 11200 kg; vernier thrusters/apogee motors: 18". (Disclaimer: this comment is just for this article. If other articles on minor mechas have some well-sourced content, they should be merged into a list. If not, delete.) Quack 688 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Zeon mobile suits while cutting out the crufty stats. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those not truely notable MS, and has little content on its own. However, it is just for this nom and I don't support the universal nom plan at all. As it most likely that it would just be random-pick-nom regardless of it content (RX-78-2 got AfD nom already, so I don't think he known which article is notable or not). L-Zwei 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all articles in template {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}} per nominator. Absolutely useless and empty articles that do not contain anything apart from in-universe fake specifications. I strongly concur with nominator's opinion "no reason why all these random suits of armor from a fictional series should have their own articles". Further, I strongly agree with all delete votes appearing above:

Ridiculous, no sources, nothing but a page of made up stats, not an encyclopedia article, per Elaragirl.
Unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia, per Proto.
Nothing to merge, per Quack 688

and so on. It really is useless. Delete. -- Ekjon Lok 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ekjon Lok. And would someone please take a look at the 493 Pokemon characters as well. Edison 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and this is effective for any article in that template that is not longer than this one. A lot of these are really not notable, I am just going to bother myself on the really notable ones like the ones appearing in more than one series. MythSearcher^talk 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. No reliable sources that support notability, no reliable sources at all, fails the non-negotiable WP:V by a mile and a half. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, heavily detailed article written with speifications that are unsourced and entirely in-universe. -- Whpq 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. As a group, these articles are not about notable subjects (lacking substantial independent reliable coverage), are mostly unverifiable and topically inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. Sandstein 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison, Proto, Sandstein, Moreschi. WP:V, WP:N and WP:INN refer. Apparently the well-intentioned editors who wrote WP:WAF wasted their time. Transwiki if anyone wants it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Medlat 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not turn this into the AFD form Hell, Take 2 by blindly including all of the other articles in {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And I second Farix's comment. Kyaa the Catlord 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article: no indication of why this is notable, even within the series itself. In the more general case, keep any suits (eg RX-78 Gundam) with real-world influence as separate articles and merge the ones which are notable within the series into a list --Pak21 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no demonstration of notability. --Folantin 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I insist to include many things seems not important for ignorant people, also per my global view as inclusionists. This article may seems not important for some, though it may be different for others. It is like Roche Limit, Spoo, etc for common people. See also my complete argument here. Draconins 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which policy or guideline are you referencing to support your argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT? --Pak21 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: See my complete argument here. It is wasting to rewrite my full argument, since that is also a precedent AfD. Thanks. Draconins 12:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement, not removal. Jtrainor 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I came here from the relevant AfD for the figurehead RX-78 page - this particular AfD is made under even worse accusations than the former was. This is almost as mind-numbing as the deletion of hundreds of Soviet-era images used under the fair use rationale because a Russian court made a retroactive decision. Infact, I would go so far as to say that this is worse, because in that instance there was at least a tiny chance of Wikipedia being in violation of fair use laws and observances - this here is downright article barbarism. MalikCarr 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because it's fictional and you're not a fan doesn't make it non-notable. As for your Halo 2 comparison...a genre-defining franchise that's still active and approaching its 30th anniversary is a lot bigger than a single recent video game. Redxiv 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree for the reasons above. As mentione,d if this can be deleted, so can many other articles for Star wars and Star Trek.George Leung
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the last few strong keepers. WP:FICT makes it clear that minor characters, places, and concepts should be merged into a list. I'm happy to apply the same policy to these mobile suits. RX-78 Gundam seems to be the equivalent of the Enterprise or X-Wing, and is definitely worth keeping independent. If you can show me that some other mobile suits are significant within the series, I'd consider keeping them. But you can't have 100 articles about 100 mobile suits and tell me that every single one is critical to the series. Someone who actually knows about Gundam needs to explain which ones are major, and which ones are minor. The best place to explain that is in the articles themselves.

Second, all this article is right now is four lines of text and a list of specs, all unsourced. (Those detailed specs aren't necessary for every single mobile suit, btw.). How often does this mobile suit appear in Gundam? Where is it established that it was "built by Neo Zeon during the First Neo Zeon war."? How do you know it has "a set of shields that could be flipped"? If you can answer some of these questions, feel free to edit the article and improve it. Quack 688 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest, I agree with some of your points above. However, just as your argument becomes more valid, you shoot it down in the second paragraph. How do we know these things you mention? That's not specifically difficult. (1) Watch the animation and/or read the comics in which they feature. If we need to source everything, I suppose I could start collecting screen captures or image scans, in line with Wikipedia's fair use policy, on your "how do we know this" points. (2) Purchase or otherwise be in posession of any of the myraid plastic model kits of these various mecha issued by Bandai, the copyright holder. In addition to being a physical representation, in scale, of that particular mecha, the manuals are usually full of the "unsourced" technical lists that were so heavily decried earlier. If you travel to this website: http://www.1999.co.jp/ (it has an English option) and visit the appropriate Gundam section, they retail the vast majority of Bandai-issued model kits, and include, for your reference, fully scanned manuals that include the technical section.

Whether or not these entries belong here as encyclopedic content (and isn't that a popular buzzword these days...) is a point-of-view issue, but I would like to lay to rest this "unsourced" hogwash ad infinitum. MalikCarr 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think you just finished off my own argument for me - cheers :-p. Seriously, by definition, if an article doesn't list any sources, it's unsourced. I don't think we need a screenshot to prove every single claim, but the article does need to say where it's getting its content from (episode name, comic book issue, tech manual, whatever) - no-one should have to ask. Of course, once some sources are listed, the other debates about reliable sources and encyclopedic content will probably start again, but some sources would still be better than none. Quack 688 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: Allright, that seems reasonable. I'll start compiling sources and appearances and so forth on articles that lack them, and we'll talk about implementing them once this nonsense AfD is dead and buried. I'm a bit uncertain as to the proper format for sourcing an episode of an animation... MalikCarr 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic cruft run amok (with beam rifles and heat swords, apparently) Pete.Hurd 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability with encyclopedic treatment per WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia. Since this only has in-universe POV, a transfer to the Gundam Wiki is acceptable but a merge into Wikipedia would go against WP:NOT#IINFO (plot summary and video game guide) --maclean 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the deletionists above: since, as has been stated, this is not a vote, perhaps you should review some of the above arguments by Edward321 and others before casting a delete vote with little more than IDONTLIKEIT as your "delete" rationale. MalikCarr 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 *'''delete''' unencyclopedic cruft run amok (with beam rifles and heat swords, apparently) [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' does not assert notability with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|encyclopedic treatment]] per [[WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia]]. Since this only has in-universe POV, a transfer to the [http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Gundam Wiki] is acceptable but a merge into Wikipedia would go against [[WP:NOT#IINFO]] (plot summary and video game guide) --[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': To the deletionists above: since, as has been stated, this is not a vote, perhaps you should review some of the above arguments by Edward321 and others before casting a delete vote with little more than IDONTLIKEIT as your "delete" rationale. [[User:MalikCarr|MalikCarr]] 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)