List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons – No consensus to overturn. This debate has gone far beyond the normal reach of DRV - whether the deletion process was correctly followed - into a detailed examination of certain sources and whether the article should exist, something that is normally AFD's domain. Despite this, however, I can discern no consensus whatsoever from this discussion.
No consensus at DRV generally leads to one of two outcomes: either the closure is endorsed by default, or the article is relisted for further debate. The choice between the two is committed to the discretion of the DRV closer. In this case, Sandstein, the closing admin, recommended a relist. While perhaps not absolute, DRV has traditionally recognized the prerogative of the closing admin to modify or withdraw their own closures. In this analogous situation, therefore, and especially given the abusive sockpuppetry, I will defer to Sandstein's recommendation, and relist this article at AfD for further discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
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)
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)
Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.
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. Anthem03:33, 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 MythSearchertalk14:28, 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]
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 MythSearchertalk09:39, 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 MarshallT/C16:15, 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 MythSearchertalk16:39, 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 MarshallT/C19:11, 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 MythSearchertalk01:50, 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 MarshallT/C11:07, 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]
(Subsequently, after re-reading) I fear that I'm being unclear. My position is that it is appropriate to have an article on Gundam, and a separate article on Gundam SEED. It is also appropriate to have a List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. I draw the line at a separate List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. I realise this is an arbitrary place to draw a line, but then, all lines are arbitrary. (If they weren't, then we wouldn't need to draw them.) And I think that with over 350 articles including over 50 lists all relating to one anime franchise, we have to draw a line somewhere.—S MarshallT/C11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is something you are overlooking about the Gundam franchise though. While there is some overlap between the various series and timelines, you can't really merge the material from one series into an article about another series and still be able to give it good coverage. If you were to look it from the perspective of a fan of the various Gundam series, this would be like trying to merge List of characters in The Simpsons and List of characters in Futurama because both are animated series which were created by Matt Groening. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think you are a little mistaken there. List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons is only a list for the first show, Mobile Suit Gundam. What you are proposing is a new list that merges all the current lists of mobile weapons into one new list. I don't think the organization of the topic has much to do with this deletion review, since this is about whether the content is kept or deleted entirely, not where it is put if it is kept. However, I'm still going to say that I don't think your proposal makes sense. There are too many mobile suits in the franchise to merge into a single article, even if the article only covered the most prominent mobile suits from each show. It also just doesn't make sense to me to merge things from completely separate plot continuities, and which would have been produced and marketed separately, into a single article. Separating the list out by plot continuity, and by show within the main "Universal Century" universe (which would have too many mobile suits for a single article) just seems like the best way to organize it. Also, I think you are just underestimating the size of the Gundam franchise in general. There are over 100 anime and manga in the franchise (going by the list at Anime News Network), as well as dozens of video games and other related products. Not all of those pieces of the franchise are notable enough for there own articles, but at least a few dozen are. Since each major piece is a notable TV show, movie, or the like in and of itself, it seems reasonable to me that each would have a few related lists (e.g. characters, episodes, etc.). All those articles add up, to the point that if the shows and movies in the Gundam franchise are covered to the typical degree of other shows and movies, there probably should be a couple hundred articles for the overall franchise. I don't think this is in any way out of line with Wikipedia's coverage of other fictional works. Many popular U.S. shows have hundreds of articles despite having many less pieces to thier franchises and having run for many fewer years (yes, I know of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but what I'm saying is that you are arguing for significantly less coverage than is standard practice on Wikipedia). Calathan (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk all about how you think there are "too many Gundam related articles", but it does not hold a candle to American or British media franchises like Dr. Who, Lost, or Survivor. But that is neither here nor there as this discussion was whether the closing admin interpreted the results correctly and not about how many Gundam articles there should be. Sandstein has already stated that in hindsight he didn't make the correct call, and the sockpuppeting of a band editor is further proof that the outcome should be overturned as non-consensus. —Farix (t | c) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Farix, the fact that one endorsing editor is a blocked sockpuppet doesn't mean the rest of us are. And the fact that Sandstein has changed his mind doesn't mean that I should. Yes, there are a ludicrously, intolerably large number of articles about Lost and Star Trek and whatever, and yes, we have absolute nonsense like sexuality in Star Trek that's urgently in need of deletion, but the fact that there are other problematic articles that we haven't deleted yet doesn't excuse this one.
Calathan, I'm not proposing a new list at all. I'm proposing that we have one list of "mobile weapons" that covers the whole franchise, and I'm proposing that we use the main list that already exists. Each entry on that list will need to be a lot briefer, which is no bad thing. Yes, I realise there are over 100 different anime and manga in the franchise, but I'm afraid I don't really care: we can cover them all using a whole lot less than our current ~350 articles, and for the sake of sanity we need to delete some. This one would be a good start.
Tothwolf, I'm not "overlooking" it. The in-universe continuity or lack thereof is simply not relevant. We can have, and should have, collective articles about the Gundam franchise as a whole, not individual articles about individual particles within it.—S MarshallT/C13:42, 16 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 MarshallT/C19:35, 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 • cer21:44, 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]
Does "Great Mechanics" have any kind of on-line presence? If it's print-only can you give me enough information I might be able to find it at a library? Hobit (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You arn't going to be finding any of these at a library, considering the majority of them have only been printed in Japan. Jtrainor (talk) 13:26, 9 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]
Do you even know what you are saying? Give me the policies that counter every single argument that supports the delete side's, please. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take anything that let's me confirm the issue exists. I have pretty good resources for hunting down things if I can get enough information. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 9 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]
BTWNikkei 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 MythSearchertalk06:22, 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]
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 MythSearchertalk16:01, 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 Weapons in Gundam, and I don't see why we should have independent one for each series. Anthem13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because only including their names in that article will exceed 32kB? Come on, the sources for each series are much more then you think, independent, analytical and evaluational sources that deletionist requested and tried their best to ignore but non the less meets wikipedia's standards exist for at least the larger compilation series like Universal Century, Cosmic Era and 00. Guess what, Gundam had been quoted as the Asia equivalent of Star Wars and Star Trek in different mainstream Asian newspapers, probably in some Western sources as well, and remote terms for you guys like mobile suit, funnels, bits, newtype(no, not the magazine, the newtype in Universal Century sense) and even Guntank appear in their news article. The director of First Gundam was invited to academic seminars/conferences to talk about space elevators, when they think about solar energy in space, they link it to Gundam. I don't even hear Lucas being invited to academic seminars, yes, Gundam is THIS prominent in Japan, think that mainstream sources will not talk about the mecha as a whole in each series, if not individual mechas? Think again. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the mechas seem to have any notability at all. Those which have some limited coverage in reliable sources can be covered in the general list, or like the Pokemon, we could even have one really big list spread over multiple articles alphabetically. There's no significant coverage of the mobile suits in SEED as opposed to them generally in Gundam, and I'm not buying that this is an encyclopaedic way of splitting them up. If you were to produce a high quality list of mecha in Gundam, you would simply only write about the ones with important roles within the series and not virtually unknown ones which appear in one episode. You haven't dealt with my argument that the quality of the content is so poor that the best editorial decision in any case would be to remove it and start again, with proper sourcing and appropriate style. --Anthem16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this user was blocked, and I am SURE s/he does&did NOT read any replies, I have specifically answered these particular questions, except maybe one. Gundam is a metaseries, and the number of mecha is way more than Pokemon, see [www.mahq.net mahq]'s Gundam list, my comment above stated clearly that even by JUST listing their names will exceed 32kB, which would cut off in some browsers, and wikipedia try its best to prevent such case. I have also listed individual sources for the series particularly for THIS DrV, your claim of no significant coverage is blatantly lies and showed very well why you have been blocked, being as disruptive as possible and denies all sources, without addressing ANY reason why they are not significant coverage. Multiple people have addressed multiple times that the AfD process is about if the topic is notable enough for inclusion, I have said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger another AfD you started, I don't think we need all of these articles as well, especially all these articles even if notable, need some major rewrite/revamp anyway, possibly meaning removing over 90% of the current contents and adding contents with reliable sources. That is why I did not cast my !vote on any stance yet, at least as of now and am only giving comments and asking essential questions to your comments. You disruptively denied a very common sense enough source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk00:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a statement like that, we now know you are being completely disingenuous. There has been plenty of evidence that the mecha has received coverage by reliable, third-party sources, yet you continue to deny that such coverage exists, even going as far as to declaring any source as "unreliable" and "not independent" because they are anime sources and not "mainstream" (which is a very subjective term itself). —Farix (t | c) 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[2] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The proposed sources are merely plot rehashes in short reviews. No hope for the article to be anything else than a massive plot dump. I think the closure justification is correct in that the issue of sourcing was not satisfyingly addressed by those wanting to keep.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe YOU should address why the issue was not satisfying, with ACTUAL policies. An in fact VERY long list was listed up there with previous unoverturned consensus that they are reliable, and I have personally listed sources that are NOT plot dump. Your comment is no different from every other deletionist that completely ignore all anime related sources, even if mainstream news sources are included in the list. This shows the complete ABF just like Anthem, or I should say the sock puppeteer up there that never actually talk about the issue of the sources and only deny their existence. Your user page stating you interest yet your complete contribution history of overwhelmingly involvement in AfDs and a little in talk pages and very little in contributing to actual articles from 2010 make it very hard to believe. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares about your psychoanalysis of other editors and what you perceive as their intentions, Dr. Freud. Stick to the argument alone and leave the aspersions aside. "Just plot rehashes" is a pretty apt summation of the sources provided, as I noted early on in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not read my posts, do you? I have listed and specifically stated sources otherwise, do you want me to list them for you again? Obviously Folken de Fanel did not read those as well, so this also serves as a reply to the next reply by Folken:
Otona no Gundam by Nikkei Business Publications, analyzing the business model and methods used by different series.
Ok, between all your personal attacks, and your obvious unwillingness to understand what "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" means, this discussion is definitely not going anywhere. All your links are officially sanctionned promotional publications (that are even advertised on the official Gundam JP website ([3]), thus not independent, thus not acceptable to assess notability. Mega endorsement of deletion as far as I'm concerned.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously made a very bold claim on this reply. Your reply down there did not mention any of these sources, and it is a fact that you did not, you said out of the 19 sources, which I can count the 19 up at the very top, but all the ones I listed were not mentioned, so I don't see why stating that considered as personal attack. Other than that, you made some point down there saying Kadokawa publishes official manga for Gundam, and might not be that independent, but your reply here is very backwards. Firstly, the official site of course would like to do their best to promote articles that are related to it, and anything related would be used as a promotion. However, this does not mean that the publication is not independent. Also, DX 8 is not even in the list up there, the official web site got no results for the non-DX issues I am talking about, if you search for "Great Mechanics" or "グレートメカニック". Also, I can tell you that publishers obviously will publish for different people, this does not mean that they themselves are not dependent. If you claim any publishers that publish for many companies and individuals dependent, you basically get no independent sources. Scientific magazines are all backed by academics, sports magazines have to make a living out from, well, sports events, they are very likely to sponsor quite a lot of them as well. All movie companies are very likely to also have some degree of share holdings of major publishers as well. Bandai got their own publication department that publishes guidebooks, I can, to some degree agree with you on Kadokawa being dependent since they also publish a majority of guidebooks and manga for Gundam, but I have to stress that it is a rather huge company, so you might be saying things like "Since Mcgraw-Hill publishes text books, all broadcasting stations under it are dependent to it and everything academic related cannot be sourced by those for notability, so be careful of what you use your analyzing on. However, extending it to advertisements by the official company on a related magazine have no basis at all. It is quite likely that when an individual have a scientific article published in a scientific journal, or his/her work made the news, s/he will talk about it, or list it in his/her own website, does that immediately make the journal and/or newspaper dependent? No, or I would have to shut up on getting on interviews from the radio/newspaper/magazines if I ever want to make Wikipedia, because if I talk about it, the source that interviewed me immediately became dependent to me, and all other news that went on it will be unreliable. This makes no sense at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk15:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". Again I don't see why we should make exceptions for Gundam. Futabasha (GM publisher) edited a magazine offering a Gunpla model([4]): officially-sanctionned commercial publication. The aim of WP:GNG is to insure that the publications are serious, because as you say, any copyright holder can pay a third-party editor to publish on a specific topic, and any editor can pay a copyright holder to have the right to make money on a specific topic. The problem is, when there is a contractual link, the publication loses its independence, thus makes it less important than if a third party journalist/scholar/etc decided on his own that a given topic is important enough to be included in a paper. Now, don't get me wrong...Of course, on its own, Great Mechanics (or Newtype) is a reliable source, but when assessing notability, we have to make sure a wide range of people deemed the subject notable, and not only officially-sanctionned publications...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mythsearcher wants me to mention "actual policies", but as we are reviewing a deletion rationale (and a whole AfD) that relied on WP:GNG issues, I think what I was talking about is pretty clear. But since Mythsearcher insists...WP:GNG states that the threshold for inclusion is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant coverage" means that "sources address the subject directly in detail" and with "more than a trivial mention". I've looked at all the reviews from ANN and they only contain trivial mentions (if any) of "mobile weapons in SEED", because they're just reviews, with 2 or 3 paragraphs rehashing plot and 2 or 3 comments about "XXX designed this", "XXX looks great", "XXX appears there"...Sorry but I see no "significant coverage" there, no section specifically dedicated to critical analyses of "mobile weapons in SEED", absolutely nothing that would warrant a stand-alone article. Then there is the little part (that many fans in AfDs tend to "conveniently" forget) about "sources that are independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". So in case Mythsearcher is not aware of it, Newtype USA is a publication directly affiliated with Kadokawa Shoten, one of the Gundam franchise producers. So of course they're going to publish promotional content about the products they are trying to sell, and they cannot be used to establish notability. Out of the 19 sources presented, 7 are insignificant reviews and 12 are not independent of the subject. Thus, the deletion rationale was correct, AfDs are not votes and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", so despite the evenly split between deletes and keeps, supporters of the article failed to provide enough sources to assert notability (even during this review), hence the deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel very strongly that you are wrong and that Newtype USA is independent from Gundam. Merely being published by the same company that also publishes some Gundam manga and light novels doesn't mean that it is not an independent source, especially considering that I don't think Kadokawa Shoten had much involvement with the Gundam anime series, which is the main part of the franchise. Furthermore, Newtype USA was published by A.D. Vision, a direct competitor of the U.S. licensor for Gundam SEED, which was Bandai Entertainment. The editors of Newtype USA were intended to be independant from A.D. Vision or any other company, and whether or not that was actually true, I certainly think they would be considered independent when covering a competitor's property. I also don't think that the editors working on Newtype USA would have had their salaries paid by Kadokawa Shoten or anything like that. Calathan (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely being published by the same company that also publishes some Gundam manga and light novels doesn't mean that it is not an independent source"...well, yes, it does. If WP:GNG says "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", I think it's quite clear and I don't see why we should make an exception. You can't deny that Kadokawa is affiliated with Gundam, you've just stated yourself that they publish Gundam manga, and that's exactly why I insist there's no editorial independence here. They've published tons of Gundam books,from manga series to novels ([[5]]) and also a manga magazine, Gundam Ace. They even have a dedicated Gundam website. They're an official sponsor/producer and the Newtype magazine is one way to advertise the franchise they're part of, just face it (seriously, where do you think the name comes from ?). As for Newtype USA, it is (well, was) mostly a translation of the original japanese articles, and Kadokawa remains one of the copyright holders even for the US publication. That ADV printed the translations doesn't change anything, the articles listed here are still originally from Kadokawa.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Could you comment on [6]? I don't know enough about Gundam for the franchise to evaluate it. It looks very strong indeed, but I don't know about independent etc. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Red link – Keep deleted. There is a consensus below that deletion can be justified on the basis of the January 2010 RfD. A new discussion there is probably the best way to determine if consensus has changed though from this discussion I suspect that it has not. – Eluchil404 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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]
overturn and redirect to Wikilink#Hyperlinks_in_wikis or wp:REDLINK. Looking at the last RFD it appears the main reasons for keeping this page deleted where 1) there was no appropriate link target 2) it is used as an intentionally red link for examples. Point 1 is adressed by linking to Wikilink#Hyperlinks_in_wikis (or wp:REDLINK, but I expect some objections to a crossname space redirect) while point 2 is not a proper reason. Yes this page is linked from several hunderd pages, but the vast majority are old AFD pages and user talkpages. It would be trivial to go through with an AWB bot and replace those links with something else. Yoenit (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why anybody who wants to undelete an article must use DRV, but if you want to undelete a redirect you have to use RFD and can't find anything about it in the relevant policies. Could you please explain why this is so? Yoenit (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is that this has never been discussed at an appropriate venue when the nominator himself listed it at RFD asking for this to be created about a year back. RFD is redirects for discussion not deletion so any listing to see whether consensus has changed from the last nom should take place there. That's exactly what the nominator did before and the consensus there was that we didn't have a redirect. That's correct process and I see no problem with the close so its not for DRV to change the outcome - especially on a don't like the outcome nomination that incorrectly implies that this was never properly discussed anywhere. Poor show! SpartazHumbug!11:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could have an AWB bot run through and replace [[Red link]] with <span style="color:red">Red link</span> or [[Like this one|Red link]]. Yoenit (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - This is a solution in search of a problem, really. There's many variations of hos this is used out there; Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amateur_radio and others note to restrain the use of redlinks, currently listed as the oldest one at WP:RECORDS, linked in many XfDs, used in a piped [[red link|lesbian porn]] in a LGBT newsletter (seen here, and so on. Just leave it alone. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can always use [[Like this one|red link]] instead, where necessary, or something even more arcane, I don't figure this is a terribly big deal one way or the other. I do note, however, that red linkhas zero incoming links from the article namespace, so I question that it's actually necessary. And if we don't need it, why mess with what's worked? Cheers. lifebaka++20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I see no valid reason to create a redirect at red link. "Why not?" is not a justification, and any time it's used for examples, it's self-explanatory. — chro • man • cer21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll point out that Blue link is blue. I'd say we should probably be consistent I tend to think we should have any useful redirect we can have. But I'm honestly not sure what target article makes the most sense. Perhaps Wiktionary's definition of the term? meh. I do think Wikilink#Hyperlinks in wikis is also a fair target. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The decision in the previous RfD to keep this deleted appears sound based on the consensus there, and I haven't seen any new arguments since then that would merit overturning it. And it seems like "retrofitting" all the current pages that link to red link to link to another page would be more trouble than is being realized: you'd have to do it manually, since some usages will be referring to the concept (which would need to get re-linked to a red-linked page that we'd then need to ensure never got blue-linked, or we'd have to do it all over again) and some usages would be referring to the page itself (like the usage in this sentence and in the RfD, which would need to remain unchanged.) As a side note, I see that someone has created "Red Link (Wikipedia)", which is now a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Red link. When you start to type "red link" in the search bar, that comes up. Perhaps it ought to be retargeted to Hyperlink#Hyperlinks in wikis or Wiki markup, and perhaps it should be renamed to Red link (Wikipedia) or Red link (hyperlink), but either way, the existence of that redirect nicely solves the problem of anyone looking to find why certain links in Wikipedia are red: even if they don't see the auto-filled Red Link (Wikipedia), the search results for "red link" will give them those pages as the top results. 28bytes (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as a procedural matter because the deletion was clearly out of process. Whether the article has any merit is a matter for a XfD to decide. Sandstein 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick (and probably uninformed) question. Why is the RfD discussion linked above not enough? I agree the deleting admin's comments didn't cite WP:CSD#G4, but it seems like a reasonable G4 (with a really poor edit summary). Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the content of the deleted page. Unless is was vandalized afterwards, I created a perfectly valid disambiguation page there. Lothar Klaic (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
