Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a mess. Spare us another trip to deletion review, having separate sections and a combined section creates confusion for admins to whether to delete, keep, etc. Please organise some prior discussion first, and consider nominating the articles separately for deletion instead. It is noted that some articles have been merged, and this might just ressolve the issue. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era

Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A blanket deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Cosmic Era vehicles (except Missile truck, listed seperately). Please review each article individually and place comments under them. Basic reason for nomination is that the articles are too trivial, more detailed discussion on a similar nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.

  • Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era
    • a list of other wikipedia articles. Keep and rename "List of..." unless it gets emptied by the rest of this AfD. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep this anyway; if the other articles are deleted, just remove the links and speculative entries. Ben Standeven 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, has had some sort of real-world impact --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Aegis class cruiser (Cosmic Era)
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete.
    • Delete. Per WP:FICTION, articles about fictional topics must include -- no, focus on -- their relevance to the real-world. This makes no argument for its cultural value, even within the Gundam universe.
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Arkansas class cruiser
    • NN as above, Infobox has most fields set to "Unknown". Almost all body text is an OR hypothesis extrapolating from real-world ship naming to explain some continuity hole. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. Like the above, this article is simple regurgitation of treknobabble about the Gundam universe. No argument for notability or importance outside fictional universe. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Connected armoured vehicle
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability. No real-world analysis or significance. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Des Moines class cruiser (Gundam)
    • NN, Same mostly empty infobox as Arkansas, same ship naming thing cut and pasted in to fill out the body. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability. No real-world analysis or significance. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • F-7D Spearhead
    • Appears to be a generic figher plane, but it's been flown by a character with lines, Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge to a "minor craft" page, per BCoates, with a focus on its relation to the major character. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FX-550 Skygrasper
    • Slightly different fighter planes, also flown by characters with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Not minor, the Skygrasper carries a significant amount of screen time, is piloted by several main characters, and enough information exists about it to sustain a full article. Keep. Iceberg3k 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm willing to accept your argument that it's significant in the series, but if that's the case, the article needs to reflect that. As it stands now, we should delete because it makes no reference to the significance of its pilots. This is a borderline example though, more of a compromise on my part than a belief that this is acceptable under WP:FICTION.
    • Delete, although it is not minor in the Gundam world, it has had no real-world impact by itself. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, has a model kit; hence real-world impact. Ben Standeven 19:36, 3 December 2006

(UTC)

    • Keep. I aggre it is the only Gundamverse fighter to have a real world modle, is a critcal plot device in 2 epsiodes of Gundam Seed, and it is needed to explain some character's motives --WngLdr34 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fraser class destroyer
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Infobox full of 'unknown' Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Guul
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hannibal-class land battleship
    • Character with lines sat in one once, but it apparently wasn't important enough to mention on his very long page. Delete.' BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Heli (Cosmic Era)
    • Generic helicopter-thing. Character with travelled in one once, but it apparently wasn't important enough to mention on his page. Delete.' BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete or redirect to helicopter; are we going to have separate articles on broom (Harry Potter) (currently a redirect to broom) or binoculars (Star Wars), too? Ben Standeven 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Infestus
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kuraokami class cruiser
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lesseps class land battleship
    • Flagship of a character with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Linear artillery
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Linear tank
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Petrie class land cruiser
    • Escort of the Flagship of a character with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Takemikazuchi (Gundam)
    • Flagship of a character who, astoundingly enough, has no wikipedia page. Final resting place of Colonel or possibly Captain Todaka. Talk page helpfully explains the OR method used to make up the vital statistics listed. Merge and Redirect to poor Colonel/Capitan Todaka's undersized page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Tarawa class carrier
    • Character with lines took command of this ship once, but it doesn't rate a mention on his page, possibly due to the official coverup of what is now known as the "Takemikazuchi fiasco". Delete
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • VoLPHAU
    • No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For discussion of the articles as a whole, talk below here

  • Delete/Merge most I'd keep the Skygrasper article since it is one of the featured air/spacecraft in the series and is pilotted by main characters. The problem with Gundam shows is that the weaponry is at least as important as the main characters and should be treated as such. (Actually, a case could be made that the mecha is more notable than the main characters due to liscensing of models and the industry that revolves around them. There are magazines dedicated to these fictional machines. Japan is a very odd place.) I'd say merge a lot of the other articles into the spacecraft and vehicles articles. Remember, we're supposed to delete as a last resort. Expanding and improving is preferred. Strong Keep per below. Kyaa the Catlord 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:CE.--Ojaulent 12:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You act as if you're actually citing a guideline.... In any case, it was the keepers that were complaining about how all of the articles were lumped together and now I can't get them to seperate. Did you read all of the nominated articles before voting to keep all? If not, these opinions are invalid.--SeizureDog 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You are citing a wikiproject. You are not citing a guideline or policy. That is bad. Did I explain it in simple enough terms this time? That a group of people are interested in filling Wikipedia with articles on Gundam stuff does not mean all Gundam articles are inherently worthy of inclusion. Stop it. Please. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have read all of these articles (and contributed to most of them). Mass deletion of a large chunk of articles is non-kosher, anyway. While the articles have problems, a mass deletion is not a good answer, especially when two of the articles targeted for deletion are articles that many of the above could logically be condensed into. It's my opinion that whenever massive groups of articles are targeted for deletion (several hundred Gundam articles have been nominated in the last 48 hours), it's an indication that somebody who has never bothered to acquaint themselves with the subject of those articles has decided that said articles are unimportant. Iceberg3k 14:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • ALL of the information in the above articles is unverifiable (WP:V). ALL of these articles are fancruft. ALL of the above articles are apparent original research. There's nothing wrong with a mass nomination of articles that are essentially of the same subject with the exact same concerns for verifiability and encyclopedic nature. The nominator made it clear that one could vote separately upon each article. I haven't, because I have the same concerns with all of them. You assert that one needs to be acquainted with the cartoon to understand the importance of these articles. In my mind, that's a blatant admission that this is pure fancruft. The articles themselves should illustrate their importance; one should not have to be an indoctrinated fan in order to derive benefit from it. JGardner 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • WP:CRUFT is an essay, NOT POLICY, and not grounds for deletion. Iceberg3k 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
            • It may not be policy (there's no need to scream, by the way), but it's an excellent essay. These articles are about extreme minutiae and there is little claim to be made that they are suitable for an encyclopedia. As you'll note, WP:CRUFT points out that fancruft dumps are rarely suitably referenced and are generally brimming with original research. In the case of the articles under debate today, there is not a single source cited in any article, with the exception of two very dishonestly misrepresented sources (each describes a deity, but the articles cite them for a claim that the fictional vehicles were named for those deities). —ptk✰fgs 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Furthermore, you're deliberately twisting my words. It's not necessary to be acquainted with Gundam for the articles to be useful (though it helps, and there are a several articles here that could stand to be merged, as they don't have enough information for a standalone article). However, there are over 100 articles being blanket-nominated for deletion, and many of those do have enough valid information to stand alone as articles in their own right. Iceberg3k 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • There is more validity in WP:CRUFT than there is in WP:CE, but that is neither here nor there. These articles don't meet the criteria set forth by WP:FICTION, as I argued before in the other thread. Prove to me that these articles meet this burden:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

How is a listing of fictional armament, fictional development, and fictional engagements an argument for its impact on the real world? No one has been able to answer me so far. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above. - Plau 12:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all None of the articles have sources. Possible WP:OR. All Fail WP:V. In my opinion, fails WP:NOT not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pure fancruft. JGardner 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You ignorance and lack of information does not mean it is fancruft, a citation needed tag is used instead of AfD for possible OR. MythSearchertalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment First, be civil. My 'ignorance', as you put it, has nothing to do with my opinion of these articles. Please be objective: how do schematics, specifications and the etymology of fictional spaceships from a moderately popular cartoon benefit anyone but the most dedicated group of fans? Second, articles based wholly on unverifiable claims is a valid reason for deletion consideration -- probably the most important one. JGardner 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply I have sited sources in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series page, before I said anything here, and the nominator has list that page as the detailed discussion. The spec are from official data, and thus is not unverifiable. This is why I said this is your ignorance and lack of knowledge. I am being civil enough to tell you what is the problem of you claim here. Articles without sources listed in the page does not provide grounds for deletion, it only provide grounds for adding a tag of references needed or citation needed. Viewing everything you do not know as unverifiable is technically ignorance. Since you have ignored there might be, and have, sources. My English is not that good and cannot think of a better word to use. I am against keeping most of the articles, thus I am not defending them at all, I am just stating your opinion of them being needed to delete just because they have no sources listed does not have enough grounds to back up the argument. On the other hand, WP:IINFO is, to a certain extend, a strong enough argument. Yet nobody can say what is important and what is not, since it is purely POV, and rubbish of one person can be treasured by many. I have no use in knowing how a specific kind of animal living in a remoted area that I will never go is like, but there are people who would be dying to know the info. There are people who need the infomation on what they are, we can find sources for it, and therefore wiki should provide it, as long as it does not violate copyright. The method of providing the information could be discussed and having a page for each and everyone of them may not be the best solution, but it is how it was done and thus a better method should be proposed. MythSearchertalk 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a need for this information, which is a dubious claim at best, does not merit inclusion. Beyond that, the existence of verifiable information is not a de facto indicator of notability. My house has a tax record, a building permit, and an address, and thus is verifiable. We can all agree, though, that my house is not a notable building. I support the compromise of merging the less-important items to a list and purging them of original research or non-encyclopedic content, but this all-or-nothing argument that keeps getting dug up doesn't help a damn thing. As I asked before, please provide us with a list of the articles that you think should remain isolated. We'll work from there. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- BiwoC 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Unlike the nomination for all the individual weapons, you CANNOT lump all these nominations together. This would delete a significant portion of articles for an entire WikiProject. --- RockMFR 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All, reasons as above. Iceberg3k 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - it may be interesting to note that most, if not all, of the images contained in the article are not fair use, and may indeed be full on copyvios. -- wtfunkymonkey 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the first 2 and Skygrasper page, Merge all others to a list like the first 2. MythSearchertalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
comment There are more primarily useful articles than just those three, for example, Lesseps appears repeatedly, and Takemikazuchi is a major plot element of the second series. Iceberg3k 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That an item appears repeatedly in a series of shows is not an indication of notability, or else we could have articles about [[coffee mugs on the tv series Friends]]. What's more, these units need to be explained in relation to these plot elements, not as standalone histories. Put the Takemikazuchi in the article on the second series. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, this is fancruft taken to a ludicrous extreme. Without any references or assertions of notability of their topics, there is no reason to consider these articles encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these articles are nothing more than indiscriminate aggregations of fan minutiae. —ptk✰fgs 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read above if you still think so. What you do not care does not mean it is not important. For sources, I have listed them in the other page. MythSearchertalk 19:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please place the source citations directly into the articles and I will reconsider my statement. Please do not refer to "the other page" without linking directly to it. (what is it, anyway? I can't read your mind.) And what is it up there you want me to read? —ptk✰fgs 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep more general articles, merge more specific ones per WP:BB. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fancruft is NOT a Wikipedia guideline, nor a reason for deletion! Any "vote" for deletion with nothing but the reasoning "fancruft" is meaningless. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So you want guidelines? I've listed some already, but okay:
  • WP:BAI Please think twice before creating an article about.. Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about. Like, say, the size, armament and etymology of numerous fictional spaceships found within a cartoon?
  • WP:FICTION Calls Major Characters notable and may warrant their own article. Calls Minor Characters notable, but should be merged into a "List of Characters article". Does not provide for the notability of transportation devices found within a work of fiction.
And some policies,
  • WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I don't think it's a stretch to consider "every conceivable facet of a cartoon" indiscriminate.
  • WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (my emphasis) JGardner 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have misinterpreted WP:V. An article, as far as I know, cannot be nominated for deletion on the fact that it is unsourced. It can be nominated if it is unverifiable. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all A blanket nom is improper. Danny Lilithborne 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete all with the exception of lists mostly unreferenced fancruft to a level of detail incomparable with notability of subjects. `'mikkanarxi 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a better approach than a straight mass deletion; but now that we have categorized deletion I think it would be better to create a Gundam deletion category to hold each individual discussion. Ben Standeven 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stupid Question Can anyone establish the importance of these vehicles outside of Gundam? JChap2007 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: Oh dear, of course not. If people actually paid attention to policies, the only existing Gundam articles would be lists, main character articles and the Gundam article itself. Of course, we have to compromise and only delete the really bad articles. To answer your question in a kinder manner: No. No one can. They are not important outside of Gundam. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    That's pretty much what I thought. Delete JChap2007 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that people keep misusing WP:NOT#IINFO. From 1~7, only 7 can vaguely be used to say that these articles should not exsist. However, the spec and such are not plot summary, and thus is out of the scope of WP:NOT#IINFO. There are information out there in wiki that is of no use to me, but is useful to a lot of other people, and there must be information that is useful to a lot of fans but not to any others. For example, I do not really need to know the Tasmanian Devil can face tumours that prevent them from eating, but it is just interesting to read different articles to learn new things, fictional or not. Yes, I do not want a page to be just plot summary, but the WP:FICT approved the article Anakin Skywalker, and used it as a reference to a good article on fictional characters. The page contains no information on how the character impacted the real world. The article Horses of Middle-earth is also another good example of what could be included in wiki. They have no impact on the real world, but they are still there used as an example on wiki policy pages. Thus it is concluded that wiki policy(ies) does not state, or encourage the deletion of articles that does not have any impact on the real world. Stop using the argument It does not have an impact on the real world so it must be violating WP:NOT#IINFO and should be deleted. it is proven to be incorrect, by examples listed by wikipedia notability criteria guideline(the WP:FICT). MythSearchertalk 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Anakin Skywalker contains information on how the character impacts the real world from top to bottom, which is why WP:FICT points it out as a good article. The second sentence of the article is "In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith...". The Anakin article is not a biography of a fictional person and the effect he has on a fictional universe, it is a description of a character and the effect he has on a series of movies. This is the difference between an encyclopedia of the real world, with out-of-universe description of real world things (animals, movies, anime) and an encyclopedia of the fictional world, with in-universe descriptions of fictonal things (spaceships, robots, sith lords). These articles only establish notabilty in the fictional universe, and use sources that take an in-universe perspective, and are organized in a way incompatible with ever fixing them. BCoates 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
From what you pointed out, one can only prove that it is a better written article, not an argument of why any article not written that way should be deleted becuase technically, all articles could be written in that format. Also, do not ignore Horses of Middle-earth as an example. MythSearchertalk 09:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Horses of Middle-earth is only mentioned on policy pages as a good example of accumulating a bunch of entries that don't deserve articles into a single one. The individual horses don't have pages. I'm for keeping and improving the equivalent Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era. It's possible the individual articles could be rewritten in an out-of-universe style and still be non-empty, but there's no evidince of it. If the merged-together article becomes so full of relevant information that individual vehicles need to be split off again, they can be. BCoates 09:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That is what I am aiming for. Merging them. I am just making a point about how people using WP:NOT#IINFO as an argument for deleting articles like these have no bases. MythSearchertalk 10:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also from WP:FICT, Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance... The people saying the ships must have RL impact are relying on this, not on WP:NOT (at least I am). JChap2007 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep/ Possible Merge. A lot are useful, and merging may result in "explosion" (especially image) or lengthy articles. Important vehicle should be placed on different page (Such as Skygrasper, Takemikazuchi, etc). Minor vehicle like Guul, is possible to be merged. Draconins 12:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Addition. I have seen that many only consider TV Series/OVA version as their point of view. Please understand that Gundam SEED (and Destiny) has official novels and mangas, too. Even some details not mentioned in TV series and movies, occurs in novel or manga. I know that some differences do occur, even between the TV series and movies. Some even mentioned that they never got screen time while they are actually do (Such as: Cruisers type vessels (in one with fleet of Takemikazuchi or carrier), Compton class land battleship (operation Angel down) ). Lesseps class land battleship is even important ones in one of Gundam SEED manga! Draconins 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Addition(Again). I see MythSearcher had listed good sources, they are japanese though. However, for non-japanese literate , try to see the official site here: [[1]] and[[2]]. Click on the images for more infos. May take time to load. Even Aegis class is put there.... They only list brief pages though. For Destiny, they are still incomplete, for japanese literate, you may need to see official japanese site :[[3]], they separate article per episode group and factions. It may also take time to load. Just remember, the sources I mentioned only talk about the tv series. AFAIK, the only official list I found about other mechas is only in Japanese. Argh... long time I am on wiki-vacation (due overwhelmed works), then I should involved in these crazy debate! Draconins 13:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki: These information may serve a more specific purpose if transferred to a seperate wikicity (in this case, I suggest Gundam Wikia). My rationale is the fact that these articles are relevant to details in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, but are generally not-so-notable outside that circle. Seen that way, they are much more appropriate to appear in a dedicated site than here. The rest should be merged into a list IMO. --Blackhawk charlie2003 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy list of sources here

I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. MythSearchertalk 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources need to have stronger focus. From what it looks like, each source has a page (or two) for each article (with a bit of background and facts) and nothing more. That does not warrant the existence of a separate article for each one. The so-called "real world impact" is for the articles as a whole, not each article. This is why a list would be acceptable. To think the FX-550 Skygrasper itself had real-world impact is ridiculous. Please do not vote "keep" in reference to these sources, although "merge" is acceptable. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I voted that to be keep is because of these 1 2 model kits. All the other articles do not have their own model kits, having it own models kits shows elevated level of importantness, not to mention having 2 or more. The article could be improve to state that the said vehicle has impacted and company to produce and design 2 model kits featuring it. MythSearchertalk 05:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe those model kits were part of a series of Gundam and mecha-related model kits. Once again, this shows that they have elevated importance in Gundam, but because they are part of a series of Gundam-related kits, they have no individual importance. Of course, they could be very high selling (or other things like that) but there's no evidence of this. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but they are not. For the same series of model kits, the first one contains only Strike Gundam and Strike Rouge (as a different colouring) as anything related to Skygrasper and is a separted model. The second series contains Ace Combat, Yukikaze both are not Gundam or even produced by companies related to Gundam. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we having consensus here?

We don't seem to have much on the other page, but this one seems to be a lot easier. Other than Skygrasper, all the others are pretty much keep the first 2 and merge(or delete) the others. Can anyone confirm the situation just so that we can move on to actually merging them? I will go and change the Skygrasper page now to modify it I have modified the Skygrasper page to show more real world impact and hope that by tomorrow we can get rid of most of the other pages. MythSearchertalk 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say go ahead. Some people voted for a straight keep all, but they don't seem to be citing any relivant guidelines. Most are agreeing that a merge is in order.--SeizureDog 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I decide to start merging some vessels because, no major changes happened before and since I edited some vessels of cosmic era. See Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam). Though, I am against merging Takemikazuchi and Tarawa into them since IMHO, it is important enough. For others, just wait... I got my hand full... currently. For all keepers, please pray that my boss does not scold me for this... (just joking... -_- ). Any suggestions are welcome. I really need your comment on Takemikazuchi and Tarawa matter. Draconins 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(Added)oops, I also forgot I also against merging Vosgulov and Lesseps. Those need your comment also... Draconins 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am kinda against those 2 have separate pages, yet. Even Captain Todaka's page is being evaluated to be deleted(and I am going to support that). Takemikazuchi appeared in, like, 3 episodes? Destiny units are still too new to have any impact on anything, and really, I think I am pretty knowledgeable on the sources, and I cannot find anything about them that is really notable, not even in the series itself. (not even the mechanical files give more than half page worth of them.) MythSearchertalk 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Same argument. Lesseps, maybe arguable. They appeared in GSA series, too, thus can have maybe an extra line saying the design inspirated the author of GSA. However, I still don't think it is important enough, just yet. Also, most of the plot summary actually should go and will make the whole article shorter, and thus even less desire on keeping it as a separated article. Not going to hurt if it is merged for now, if any more sources pop up to support the Lessep, like having a model kit or appearing in Super Robot Wars or anything like that, I will say split it back out. All the sources now are still too oriented towards Gundam Seed series and there really are not much to tell for now. MythSearchertalk 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This discussion marks an important advance in the repeated discussions of such objects--put them in groups: not a particular type of warship, but warships. Perhaps such a practice will make obsolete this sort of discussion.DGG 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update due to the discussion being inactive for more than 24 hours after my suggestion, I am going to merge the ones that no one is fighting for a keep. I am going to leave Takemikazuchi, Tarawa, Vosgulov and Lesseps alone for maybe 2 more days and see if anyone coming up showing their importance countering my argument above. MythSearchertalk 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Update, complete merging all vessel AfD-ed above, except Takemikazuchi, Tarawa, Vosgulov and Lesseps (I will decide in 2 days, will be merged if nobody except me against the merging). Only vessel type though. I plan to add other minor vessel not AfD-ed in the page. See Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam), and give your comment/suggestion. Draconins 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Cosmic_Era_vehicles_5323.html"