Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMF-X000A Dreadnought 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. Consensus to keep already exists (I count 16-to-6 against deletion), and as per precedent of several other similar AfDs recently. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

No assertion of notability outside the Gundam cartoon and toy franchise, extremely obsessive level of detail about a cartoon world. Brian G. Crawford 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep a lot of the other gundams get their own page; why shouldn't this one? And of course Gundams don't have significance outside of the Gundam world. Mostly because we're still in 2006. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Because even if Wikipedia has unlimited hard drive space, this is a waste of space. Brian G. Crawford 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it makes Wikipedia look like a playground for teenage couch potatoes. Brian G. Crawford 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, the old lets keep this because lord knows it'll be factual instead of fictional in the future argument. Gotta love it! Cornell Rockey 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability of Gundam stuff hasn't changed in the last 3 days, Brian. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Same old nominate with same old reason. Consider that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series all all fail, you should learn to give up (or at least find more convincing reason)L-Zwei 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Same reason as other articles earlier. - Plau 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Gundam is notable (check Google), and there's enough of them that merging into one big article simply isn't reasonable. Considering the the same user recently attempted to delete several other Gundam articles without success, I'm not sure that I can consider this a nomination in good faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• More trivial Gundam-cruft, but consensus is pretty clear that this stuff should be kept. I'll cast a futile vote to delete as a reminder that not everyone agrees with the encyclopedic value of this stuff, but at this point, as a matter of courtesy and respect of process, it would be better to desist bringing further such items to AfD. Eusebeus 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with Eusebeus that consensus established has been to keep but that encyclopedia-worthiness is dubious at best. TheProject 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I say strong keep as I use the info in this article with an online RPG. I so far have not found the data anywhere else. - Revan Vrake
• Keep, notability is established. --Terence Ong 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Your attempt to get all the Gundam Articles deleted has failed, there's no point in trying to slip a new one in. See also the reasons in the older debates, as posted by L-Zwei. Golux Ex Machina 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Ironically, the Dreadnaught is actually a main character mecha from Seed Astray X - which, according to some of the users who even wanted to delete the previous articles admitted that main character mecha had to stay. Also the same reasons I've expressed earlier - as well as the reasons above, and the complete lack of position that Mr. Crawford has at this point. --NewtypeS3 07:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Revan Vrake: if the information is not available elsewhere, this is original research. If not OR, then of highly questionable notability. Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nomination. Vizjim 09:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• By Brian? Seems unlikely. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Was your tongue in cheek here? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea who Brian is, I'm basing my comment on the number of similar occasions the same thing has been tried before. Vizjim 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Get real, its an imaginary weapon from some dumb cartoon or something!!! Jcuk 10:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons as the last however many times. NoIdeaNick 10:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is just as notable as most other fictional articles. If you don't want fiction in wikipedia, campaign to have the policy changed, don't just try and delete individual articles. --Tango 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For this to be purposefull you'd need to get rid of all 00's of the Gundam articles without any policy support I can see. 13:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with above. Bucketsofg✐ 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per L-Zwei. -- ReyBrujo 16:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP Why are trying to destroy hard work, man? Fans worked on these articles and they deserve to keep them. Sure, Gundam may be fictional, but it's one of the most popular anime sagas out there; it's been around for 27 years; and if you are trying to delete the Gundam articles, you're gonna need a lot of support, which apparently you don't have... -- GrievousAlpha95 1:01 pm, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:JzG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angus McLellan. This AFD is a paragon of Wikipedian systemic bias for inclusion rearing its ugly head. Kuzaar 19:14, 5 May 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.