Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthem of joy (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 14 June 2011 (expand argument). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2011 June 5
2011 June 7 >

6 June 2011

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete the article, in fact it was farily evenly split between deletes and keeps, and the reasons for deletion were mostly about cleanup issues. There is also the fact that at least 13 reliable, third-party sources were provided to demonstrated coverage of the whole. This has now increased to 19 articles among 9 different authors that have been found to day and we still haven't began checking into coverage of the model kits and toys by Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan. All of this combined is more than enough to counter any claims that the list lacked notability.

  1. Fargo, Paul (March 3, 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED". Anime News Network.
  2. Fargo, Paul (August 15, 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny DVD 1". Anime News Network.
  3. Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15. (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
  4. Kimlinger, Carl (May 6, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny: Final Plus DVD". Anime News Network.
  5. Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
  6. Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21. (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
  7. Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29. (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
  8. Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
  9. Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
  10. Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
  11. Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39. (Features Destiny Gundam)
  12. Konoh, Arata (January 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Destiny Calls". Newtype USA. 6 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–35. (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
  13. Martin, Theron (January 23, 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed X Astray Vol. 1". Anime News Network.
  14. Martin, Theron (September 30, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny TV Movie II". Anime News Network.
  15. Santos, Carlo (September 12, 2005). "Gundam Seed the Movie: The Empty Battlefield". Anime News Network.
  16. Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
  17. Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
  18. Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
  19. Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.

—Farix (t | c) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, a bit reluctantly. We've really got no consensus about the extent to which information on fictional constructs requires sourcing that's entirely independent of the underlying fictional work(s), or even on just what "independent" means here. We've got bushels of articles on reality tv programs and their participants, and most of them are sourced to the programs themselves -- which means, in fact, that much of it is borderline OR/synthesis regarding living persons. But consensus seems to be that this is OK under policy, and I can't see how to argue that such sourcing shouldn't be allowed, under the same policies, in articles about animated cartoon fiction. Certainly this article was better sourced than the typical Wikipedian movie plot summary. Therefore, with the expressed community sentiment so closely divided, the closer had to impose his own policy interpretation to reach the close he did, and while it's an interpretation I'd support for across-the-board application, I don't think it represents the community interpretation in practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to those magazines, but yes to other sources I have worked for other Gundam SEED articles such as an analysis book to work in that.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - these sources are not true secondary sources because they essentially reformulate primary material while making few analytic or evaluate claims about it. This prevents the article ever becoming more than plot only coverage. Per what Wikipedia is not, indiscriminate lists of information on fictional works are inappropriate - this includes this list of fictional weapons, none of which have received coverage outside of niche publications targeted specifically at fans of the series. There is little evidence despite previous consensus that any of these sources have the same sort of editorial processes or control comparable, to, say, academic peer review, and I therefore believe the closing admin was justified in closing the debate as delete. Note that a debate on a similar list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe, was closed as redirect as opposed to delete only due to the fact TheFarix claimed to have used some of the content in other articles. I therefore stand that this is not a case of odd local consensus, but represents the consensus of the community. Anthem 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you want analytic or evaluation, Great Mechanics is a fairly good reliable source. It is a magazine dedicated to analyzing and evaluating fictional mechanical units with reasoning and real-life aspects. Issue number 20 extensively talks about the Gundam SEED series. Otona no Gundam--Business & History+Character+Mechanic Perfect by Nikkei also contained such. For SEED mechas, it specifically analyzed the atheistic design and compared it with earlier designs of the same designer about the simple and functional tendency of the series. It also analyzed the sales of such series can be compared with the gunpla boom of first gundam, the sales tactics was also evaluated. On the issue of SEED-D, it evaluated it as getting away from the real robot genre curse, and evaluated its use of touch board concept in its model sales that made it easier to be snapped off for kids without using tools. Have fun denying Nikkei as a reliable source and claiming it primary. P.S. These are Mecha specific, the book got other sections dealing with the anime and characters and about their business models, so don't bother trying to say it only gives notability to the series, not the mobile weapons. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I see little in the sources provided to establish notability of the weapons, all they talk about is plot rehashes and repackaging the old series into new 90-minute formats. Seems like a list of nerd-lore was correctly deleted as failing notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Farix those are reliable sources there (That isnt the problem) the problem is that it appears to be all WP:PLOT, I will change my input if something along the lines of backround character info (development, concept) or an award by fans as most liked character (Something along those lines) comes along. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tarc; I've looked at the list of sources but there aren't any mainstream ones. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are mainstream sources a requirement here for some reason? Hobit (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no opinion on whether the list should be restored or not, but I think the suggestion that more mainstream sources are needed is certainly incorrect. Both Anime News Network and Newtype USA are reliable sources and among the most prominent English-language sources that cover anime (well, Newtype USA was, before it stopped publication). As long as the sources are reliable and independent, there is absolutely no reason why coverage from sources focused on a specific subject wouldn't be sufficient for articles within that subject. Calathan (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no mainstream reliable sources are available for a subject that does mitigate against its inclusion. Most fringe theories have been covered to some small extent in reliable sources (even if it is only to say they are wrong). I strongly endorse S Marshall's message immediately below. I believe WP:OUT applies here. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stifle, fringe theories challenge mainstream believes, that is why you need mainstream RS to confirm its notability, not self publications of OR. Anime related topics should be sourced from experts of the field, thus anime related sources should be used, thus mainstream here means publications that are specialized and prominent in the field. This is exactly the same thing as a more publicly issued newspaper is less reliable on Science topics than the less published Scientific Journal, the same concept applies here, that the people experienced in the field are working in the Journal, and people that know only general news works for newspapers. As the same concept goes, that is why one doesn't cite Gundam publications(primary sources) for the notability test, since it is the same as fringe theorist citing their own theories as notable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Put differently, Science isn't a mainstream publication, but inclusion in it is certainly a strong reliable source for a Science related issue. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hobit, I very often agree with you and I have all due respect for what you say, but in this case I really am struggling to understand in what way Science—a scholarly, peer-reviewed, academic journal of international significance—is in any way comparable with the sources that have been presented for the list in question.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The main concern here is that stifle required the sources to be mainstream, by which also excludes Science magazines as reliable sources, and of course is totally not based on any policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, and seems to be entirely made up by deletionists to deny all sources presented. You can change science magazines with any other fields, like movie, geography, economy, automobile, etc. It all works, if no mainstream source means no reliable source at all, Wikipedia can delete most articles with this very reasoning. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think this constitutes a response to Stifle's position. I think it's a response to a misunderstanding of Stifle's position. I don't think Stifle would object to the use of sources like Newtype Magazine or the Anime News Network to detail an article about Gundam. I think that what Stifle objects to is the use of sources like Newtype Magazine and the Anime News Network to detail 374 separate articles in Category:Gundam and its subcategories. (374 may not be strictly accurate; I've just done a quick and dirty count.)

                    The basic point here is that the amount of coverage we have is completely and utterly disproportionate to the importance of the topic. Nobody is saying that you can't have Gundam-related articles. Nobody is saying that you can't use Newtype Magazine or the Anime News Network as sources. What the "deletionists", as you call them, want to achieve is a simple group of short articles that give you an introduction to the topic and a basic understand of it, and tell you where to look for more detailed information. Because that's what encyclopaedias do. Everything over and above that simple group of short articles belongs in an alternative outlet. See?—S Marshall T/C 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                    • Even if it is not the position of Stifle, there are still deletionist out there with this kind of position, see the AfD from Hell and some other Gundam related AfD, in which none provided any form of policy to support this not-mainstream-not-reliable claim but still denied every single sources, some even go as far as refusing mainstream sources, stating things that more or less means if it contains anime related contents, it must not be reliable and notable. I do not support the keep of all 374 separate articles, even for the other AfD Anthem listed, I only support 1 of them, and if possible, merge to this one. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • S Marshall, yes I was shooting for the fact that Science isn't a mainstream magazine but it non-the-less is extremely important for notability. I feel that Stifle's !vote isn't really meaningful here (and I'll note that I generally think quite highly of Stifle's opinions at DrV/AfD) and tried to show the silliness that would result if we did do things that way. That said, are there too many articles on this topic? Quite possibly. Is the deletion of this article the right way to address that problem? I've not seen any arguments that make that case. A wider discussion (perhaps an RfC) on how to organize the material would make sense. But randomly cutting articles that meet our inclusion guidelines (especially a list article where other articles might be best merged) isn't really the best way to do that IMO. If others feel AfD is the right way to handle this, I'd prefer that be the actual discussion (a point which you raised) rather than effectively justifying on really weak arguments (claiming their are no independent sources or claiming that because those sources aren't "mainstream" they don't count). I'd be interested in everyone opinion on how many articles we should have on Star Wars, Dr. Who, Gundam, and D&D. I've proposed in the past that we allocate a fixed number of pages (and max sizer per page) to each topic area and let folks do their best to cover the material as well as possible. I'm not sure how we pick the number of pages per topic (or what topic areas we should so limit), but it might take care of the "cruft" arguments while also greatly improving the quality of our coverage. You seem to be pushing for a limit here, I'm curious what you think would be a good limit on each of those example topics. (I'll bring that to your talk page). Hobit (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The limit would be WP:NOTINHERITED in this case (and that's a matter that was raised during the AfD!) The sources relate to Gundam SEED. They don't relate to mobile suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, and I don't think the weapons constitute a useful separate topic. It's overly granular.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • There are currently articles on many of those suits/mobile units. This would be the ideal merge target. I'm not a Gundam person, but my understanding is that the "mobile weapons" are the vast majority of what the show is about and the coverage is therefore largely about this topic. Is that mistaken? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my amazement, I see that Category:Gundam has fourteen subcategories. We have a total of 56 lists related to Gundam, and restoring the present one would give us 57. Our coverage of Gundam appears to be more extensive and thorough than our coverage of, say, Switzerland; we definitely don't need any more material about it. And the so-called sources for this list look absolutely desperate to me.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Seems a reasonable close based on a sensible reading of the discussion. Reyk YO! 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Those sources discuss this list of technology in context of plot and the series, without establishing any independent notability for each of the devices, which is what we'd need. Reason for closure is reasonable and well within policy. — chro • man • cer  21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Closing decision was done within policy and the sources, which amount only to three different publishers, do not seem to provide anything different from plot rehashes for the fictional weapons. Jfgslo (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I think 3 publishers is fine, WP:N doesn't really require more than 1 as far as I know. Secondly, does more than a "plot rehash" exist in, say, Magic in Harry Potter? (yes, that's an "other things" argument, but I'm curious if you think that too should be deleted). Finally, please recall this isn't an AfD2--this is supposed to review the close, not argue a close anew. I realize I'm addressing your AfD arguments which I probably shouldn't be, but I'm a bit surprised by the overall AfD2 nature of this DrV. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, it's all nerdcruft, and whether it is kept or deleted is more dependent on how active the local nerds are in saving their preferred content rather than any grounding in a uniform/fair application of notability guidelines. Try to delete any of the Trekkie or Pokemon cruft and the resistance will be stiff, but a soft target like List of Firefly planets and moons might be able to slip by the Whedonites. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it turns out, being "nerdcruft" isn't a reason for deletion. There does however seem to be pretty massive coverage (including a large chunk of an independent magazine) on the topic. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturnPlenty of independent reliable sources. There's no policy that requires larges amounts of analysis in that material. What matters is that there are third party, independent reliable sources. There is in fact no WP:OR issue either. Comparisons that we don't have as much material as on more important topics is not reasonable- the solution there is to write more about Switzerland now remove this content. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Jfgslo made reasonable arguments that WP:N wasn't met. I feel he got the worse of that discussion, but his !vote is policy/guideline based and certainly quite reasonable. Shooterwalker simply waves at WP:N and cites a proposed guideline, which while on point, has no weight. Knowledgekid87's comments relate to the current state of the article, and a manual of style. Anthem of joy's nomination statement effectively cites NOT:PLOT and he later complains that there is no scholarly work in the area. NOTPLOT is clearly relevant and his comments on scholarly work, could, it the best light, be read as there being no works "discussing the reception and significance" of the work. On the keep side, Farix provided cites which he provided some reviews which he says discussed the topic. 184.144.163.181 provided a "OTHERSTUFF" argument, Kraftlos commented on the central nature of the topic to the larger series (with no cites to show this) but also commented that he felt the sources provided by Farix were enough for inclusion. The closer apparently felt that there were no reliable third-party sources. I'd be fine with a !vote to that effect, but I don't think there was consensous in that discussion that that was the case (and I'd say it's factually incorrect--only the depth of the sources was in debate). Hobit (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse closure The closure was based not on the number of !votes but the quality of the arguments, and was entirely proper. Most of the purported sources are little more than directories. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus. The references are sufficiently independent. The sources given my Mythsearcher in particular allow for more than a plot description. I sharply disagree with to Stifle's argument that sources must be mainstream. Almost by definition, we could write about few specialist subjects were to have such a rule, I challenge anyone to show that such a rule exists in Wikipedia, or has every been accepted as a criterion (except in contrast to fringe sources, when dealing with fringe science). I also disagree with Tarc's argument that we need to show notability of the individual weapons -- if we could he would be able to write an article about each of them, but this is a list article about the group entirely, and notability criteria do not apply to article content. (In fact, the sources given by Mythsearcher might indicate we could meet WP:N for individual weapons, not that I would personally advocate such an article myself as the preferred way of dealing with the topic, but regardless of what happens here, it might be interesting to try.) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW Nikkei business publication IS a mainstream publisher, so at least 1 source is mainstream by their standards. I notice the fundamental !vote process that most of them simply stop replying after their !vote, some people just simply don't bother building consensus, and simply here to cast their !vote, I would like to remind closing admin to consider those that have no signs of trying to communicate are highly likely just deletionists with POV of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and showed no signs of listening to counter arguments. Those who at least replied specifically to deny and refuse all sources albeit making up rules like mainstream seemed to be a better game than those. (Those who actually follow policies are even better) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The issue seemed to be the quality of sources. The closer asserted that the Keep side did not address this issue but they did, in fact, present such sources and disputed them at length with the delete side. There was no consensus on this essential matter of fact and so the close was invalid in claiming that there was. Warden (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There appear to be plenty of sources which give the subject coverage, however there are likely far more non-English sources available which have not been mentioned here because this is a Japanese franchise (and an extremely popular one at that). At the time the AfD itself was closed however, there appears to be no consensus either way and the close should have reflected that. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Lacks significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What's wrong with the sources? In addition to the massive number of sources listed there is a special issue of a magazine focused on this topic that is independent . Do you find that magazine's coverage not significant, not reliable, or not independent? What about the other sources? Based on your !vote I'm assuming you've examined them, could you share your thoughts? Hobit (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The sources are certainly independent and reliable, so suggestions that that they aren't should have been given no weight in the deletion discussion (and also shouldn't be given any weight in this deletion review). While I don't think all the links provided by Farix are in depth coverage, with the sources given by MythSearcher, there is enough here to support this article. The claims that too many articles are being supported by the sources or that Gundam series have a disproportunate amount of coverage compared to other topics is irrelevant to this deletion review, as we are only considering whether this one particular article should exist. Furthermore, I think that the people who are saying there are too many Gundam articles are making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement, as there is no reason not to expect a major franchise that has been around for over 30 years to have enough notable topics to support many articles. Calathan (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to closing admin I would like to address the closing admin that I did NOT cast my !vote intentionally as a protest to the !vote process and to adhere to the policy of not democracy. Please do not count me in if you are counting votes to close this, even if you think this one single vote is going to make the significant difference. According to the policy, the closing admin should be reading the rationale of both sides, and consider the consensus, so I refuse to take part in such vote counting process, even if it means the result will be endorse. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I'm saying this as the admin whose closure is contested here. I was about to do so myself after I was contacted about the closure on my talk page, but was eventually unsure about whether a relist would help find a clearer consensus. But since many here are of the opinion that the list of magazine sources that has been provided warrants closer inspection, I recommend that the discussion be relisted to allow a clearer consensus to be sought.  Sandstein  18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note we also have a bunch of articles at AfD that are ideal merge targets to this one [1]. In general lists are a good way of dealing with material like this. I think keeping this one and merging the rest to it would be an ideal outcome. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really "ideal merge targets". They've got very little cited coverage which would be suitable to merge. We already have a list of mobile suits in Gundam at List of Mobile Suits in Gundam, and I don't see why we should have independent one for each series. Anthem 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red link (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't really see a reason as to why red link should remain a red link. The deletion rationale for the latest version is "Not a good idea"...which requires some elaboration. It doesn't seem the article was ever listed at afd. Smallman12q (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6&oldid=434236510"