Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam

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 of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, GAT-X103 Buster Gundam, GAT-02L2 Dagger L, GAT-04 Windam, GAT-X370 Raider Gundam

This is part of a walled garden of almost a hundred articles that I proposed for deletion. All PROD tags have been removed, so they come here. I'll nominate them one at a time or in small groups to avoid problems like those seen with the mass nomination of Polynesian mythology articles. This is obviously fancruft, highly specific material about a fictional world. These articles go into excrutiating detail on the specifications of fictional giant robots from a Japanese cartoon. It's not of general or encyclopedic appeal, and this series already has a Wiki at WikiCities anyway. It needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. (We can do this right?) Kotepho 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then. Kotepho 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, they seem to have been copy/pasted there. No histories. Probably should transwiki them for GFDL reasons. Plus, ours have pictures. Kotepho 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as per Kotepho. Delete It's already there, so no reason for it to be here. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They're already at wikia:c:Gundam. I guess I should've mentioned that. Brian G. Crawford 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Declaring your intention to mass-nominate articles relating to a massively popular, genre-defining franchise seems like bad faith to me. Redxiv 06:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep While I don't like SEED much, it's worth to keep. No general interest? Gundam is consider to be largest mecha franchise in Japan. Delete these article would be like delete all Star Wars's article like AT-AT, AT-ST and AT-PT(and there are TWO wiki web for Star Wars already as well). Not that I don't like Star Wars, but Japaneese anime is a form of art too. If mecha and spaceship from American's sci-fi movie can be include here in Wikipedia, why mecha from Japaneese sci-fi anime can't? L-Zwei 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would vote the same way on those article. I do want to reiterate your point and Redxiv's though; Gundam is a huge franchise and arguably genre defining. Kotepho 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per L-Zwei. Dspserpico 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and the same should be done with a lot of star wars stuff (et al) too. Lundse 10:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge summaries into some kind of list if there isn't one already. Delete if such a list already exists. Fictional robots that are not actually iconic (like Optimus Prime or R2D2) do not need articles of their own; but the Gundam series is important enough to deserve more detail than most mecha anime. ArcherXRin 11:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. — Haeleth Talk 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If that is done, Wikipedia would be pretty useless - Plau 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, we'll still have articles on porn stars. If we delete them then, ooh, we'll have to have articles on boring things like Belgium and Shoe polish. Obviously without all the detailed in depth articles on a robot that appeared for three seconds in a Japanese anime in 1997, there's no point. After all, Wikipedia is such a pathetic idea we couldn't possibly compete with *real* encyclopedias. And yes I am being sarcastic. Average Earthman 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Weapons in Gundam universe or somesuch -- there are two or three orders of magnitude in terms of cultural notability between SW/ST and even the world's most popular manga, and even the SW cruft should be merged into less nerdily completist articles. Manga-cruft. -- GWO
  • Comment - Do you have any idea how bloated an article that would create? You're talking about merging hundreds of articles together, not just the four that were chose for this particular AfD session. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not paper. There's no reason we can't have "nerdily completist articles", as you put it, for these subjects. It's not as if we're dealing with a finite amount of space and these articles are preventing us from fully covering some historical or scientific subject. Redxiv 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge into Weapons in Gundam universe. --Eivind^t@c 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all of these into a single article, per Esperanza. This info can be kept somewhere, but these do NOT merit articles of their own. Kuzaar 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by Kuzaar. Semperf 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:kMEMES?) 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki articles to wikia:c:Gundam as it appears from comments above that the articles currently at wikia:c:Gundam are not complete (missing pics, etc). I'd also support a Merge to Weapons in Gundam universe if there is a strong interest level in keeping some mention of this in Wikipedia. A link to wikia:c:Gundam would be wholly appropriate there. No good, logical reason for keeping separate articles for all these things has been put forth. For the record, this would be my preferred treatment for Star Wars vehicle, weapon, et al articles; Pokemon; and virtually every other fictional world that spawns this level of minutae.--Isotope23 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Lets keep the fancruft to a minimum, shall we? --Mmx1 16:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep These subjects are quite notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, you know... this much coverage of a particular fictional universe is probably a kind of copyright infringement. Mangojuice 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do you actually know what copyright infringement is? Redxiv 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll admit I wasn't that clear, but yes, I do. I spelled it out more clearly in the other AfD. There's a lot of specific, authoritatively-presented information here. Is it okay to mass-reproduce the stats and critical data of these robots from an official source? It goes beyond fair use, so that's not okay. On the other hand, it may not come from anything published... in which case it's unverifiable. Mangojuice 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Mangojuice - as the numbers and 'facts' involved are a work of fiction rather than a measurement of reality, they do indeed come under copyright. Copyright doesn't just mean "don't cut and paste". Average Earthman 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Dominus 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam might as well be merged with this debate, they're both big group-nom AfDs, and no one seems to be giving any attention to the individual robots here anyway... might as well have only one debate. Mangojuice 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • THe only reason they're not is that Crawford thinks he's more likely to achieve some deletions with them split. He basically admits as much. Redxiv 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, process objection. I've changed my mind. These articles are not sufficiently similar to warrant bundling them together in this group while others get bundled together in a different group. I still don't like all this Gundam cruft, but these small-group AfDs are a bad way to decide the question. Mangojuice 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT the correct merge target is: Cosmic Era Mobile Units 132.205.45.110 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE 132.205.45.110 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) User has 14 edits, the last four since Oct 2005 are to related AfDs.
• Keep. Nominator states "highly specific material about a fictional world". Sorry, if Jimbo wanted to keep Wikipedia from containing details of fictional worlds like Buffy, Star Trek, B5, the Simpsons, and Gundam, he would have said so at the beginning of the project. But this is the Wikpedia we have, and I frankly think we are better off for it. If the breadth of Wikipedia bothers you, don't read those sections. Turnstep 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• What Jimbo didn't say about hypothetical content generally, says bugger-all about the actual worth of the actual content under actual discussion, even if one ignores the ever-popular false dichotomy of "If have X, you must keep unrelated Y!" Perhaps we could stick to the actual topic at hand? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a false dichotomy at all. The claim is not that the articles should be deleted specifically because they are about Gundam, but that they are "fancruft" for a science fiction series. But if that's the reason we're going to delete these articles, the same reason applies to any fictional science fiction series like Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.88.2 (talk • contribs).

• Smerge or even delete. The very model of fancruft -- very detailed information about a narrow (usually entirely fictional) subject, of very little or absolutely no significance outside of the fanbase (and, really, not even usually there). This ain't the Otakupedia. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Even before I created an account on Wikipedia I assisted on Gundam articles through many of the Gundam Alternate Universes. I will not see them deleted because of a non-Gundam fan proclaiming it as fancruft. Besides the Gundam Wikicities is not a note-worthy site yet due to the lack of contributors. Anyway be keeping it on this page it would make it easier for these articles to get noticed even if I have to put a plan together to shorten these articles to do it. Adv193 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please add why you believe these should be kept? While your contributions to the articles are appreciated, they, the nom, and the noteworthiness of the Gundam Wiki have nothing to do with whether these articles should be kept. You might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRUFT --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this is only trying to delete minor components of the series. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Please let me know where those other articles are so that I can nominate them for deletion also. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I think the deletion requests that I've seen in most of the entries are a bit ridiculous. Be more reasonable. These articles are important to the Gundam SEED entry. Ominae 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability for these ... whatever the heck they are. Fagstein 07:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First and foremost, I agree with Mangojuice on the subject of the process involved in the AfD. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with including an article about a fictional vehicle in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be far better served by attempts to improve existing articles than crusades against articles that some see as too detailed or irrelevant. One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is the breadth of its coverage. NoIdeaNick 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please base your opinion on policy, especially WP:V and WP:N, not on your individual feelings. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series. Then nominate all USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you assert the non-notability of a few major, unique ships in a well known series? While Gundam might be well known, having articles for minor things like this is [WP:CRUFT]]. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP it seems that people want to combine or delete Gundam's articles and calls them fancruft, isnt that what ALL of Star Wars' articles are as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs).
• KEEP as explained above Lone Jobber 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness has no bearing on notability (WP:N) and verifiability (WP:N). Please read these policies before commenting on deletions - this is not a question of whether the articles are important to some editors, but is instead a question as to whether the articles conform to policies for inclusion. Wikipedia has a specific mission, and this mission does not include being a repository of all knowledge. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would say transwiki, but they're already gone. Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:WWIN. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Philosophus 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete and Transwiki. None of these appear to be verifiable (WP:V), and there are no sources listed. In addition, the notability is highly questionable, and it is quite possible that there are copyvio issues. However, the nomination was done poorly. All of these should have been listed on one AfD. --Philosophus 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I will reconsider this if the articles are properly sourced.

Update 2: Rappapa seems to have started to give references for the articles. Whether these references satisfy WP:V or not is unknown, but they do seem to at least partially dispell the copvio concerns. I am just changing my vote to weak delete. Others should look into how well these sources would work. --Philosophus 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KeepMarineCorps 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Considering that the fancruft page explicitly uses the words "eighty-seven articles on giant robots from a Japanese TV/comic book franchise"… I gotta say delete, as animecruft. --phh (^t/_c) 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please re-read the essay. The essay takes no position on whether such things constitute cruft that should be deleted. JoshuaZ 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -The Fancruft page uses it as an example. The page has been editted so that the parties who want this criteria gone cannot use the cruft page as a way to make their opinions justified. Rappapa

User's first edit was a vote on one of these AfD's. WP:CRUFT has been reverted, please do not change other pages in order to make a point and undermine the positions of others. --Philosophus 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Mr. Crawford is trolling. I'm no fan of Gundam SEED, but if Mr. Crawford desires all this Gundam material to be deleted, then the subpages for all works of art, Star Trek, Star Wars, the Simpsons, etc... should be deleted too. Thats absurd. Just because you're ignorant or disinterested on the subject doesn't mean that it should go. Quiddity99 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Disagreeing with Brian's nomination doesn't make his nomination trolling. JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per L-Zwei and Kotepho although the articles could use some explanation of why they are significant (i.e. how they have influenced anime and other media). JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all the info into a table, and delete the images. -- infinity0 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - These articles are all of our work, not his, and just because he wants to wipe Gundam off Wikipedia, then he's gonna have to get a lot of supporters. As everyone has implied, taking Gundam off would lead to every fictional article on Wikipedia being deleted: Star Wars, Star Trek, South Park, Simpsons, Family Guy, all of them; and that would make Wikipedia not...worth updating. Sorry I had to say that. GrievousAlpha95 9:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody is suggesting the removal of Gundam. Fagstein 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep. - In the past, I have refrained from getting involved with AfD issues so as to limit interaction with users who are, for all intents and purposes, "undesirable unmentionables." I support keeping these articles for all of the reasons which have been articulated by the majority of those who voted keep.

If this is the only way to control trigger-happy wikipedes — who make no positive contributions to entries in the main space, well... so be it.

(FYI: This user who nominated the articles is an avowed deletionist.) Folajimi 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being a deletionist. And we shouldn't be keeping articles that don't belong here just to silence a group of Wikipedians. Fagstein 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as that is your opinion, I say YMMV. Given my first-hand experience with such users, I am unpersuaded that they have any appreciation of the effort which goes into creating worthwhile articles.

As for the latter half of your remark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Looking over my remarks, I never suggested censoring users who are interested in removing entries from the Main Space. (Considering the amount of indisputable cruft which I have "stumbled upon" in Wikipedia, I do wonder why so much effort is expended on trying to deep-six contributions like these...)

At any rate, I maintain that deletionists are a little more than a nuisance to this project; that goes double for inclusionists. Folajimi 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:19, 29 April 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.