Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMA-002 Neue Ziel

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 keep. Majorly 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA-002 Neue Ziel

AMA-002 Neue Ziel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above.--Folantin 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• BALEETE per nom. ~ Flameviper 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just merged a shiteload of those articles into Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe. It's a bit rough and needs an introduction, but I assume the same could be done for the rest of these behemoth collections of articles... ~ Flameviper 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure the Ziel is notable in its role in 0083, serving as the fleet's vanguard during Operation Stardust, crippling Delaz' flagship, serving as Gato's personal vehicle through which he was able to implement the final course corrections for the decending colony... From a perspective from the narative it serves as the representative of the antagonist during the hero's final battle. And from a wider scope its design looks to be something of a tribute to a certain other mecha franchise who's name escapes me at the moment. When citing sources for the significance of a particular vehicle or technology from fiction, can said work of fiction be cited?--205.211.141.243 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pak21. Edison 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner is just in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The machine plays a pivotal role in Gundam 0083, and just because you personally are not a Gundam fan doesn't make Gundam aricles non-notable. Redxiv 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, an important mobile armor in 0083.--Father Vice 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep per aboveOo7565 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per PAk21 and Moreschi. Does not assert notability with encyclopedic treatment per WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia. Since this only has in-universe POV, a transfer to the Gundam Wiki is acceptable (the above keep votes based on notability in the series would be valid there) but a merge into Wikipedia would go against WP:NOT#IINFO (plot summary and video game guide). Wikipedia needs real world notability as established through secondary sources and encyclopedic treatment. --maclean 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Why is it necessary to remove any article which is neither vandalism prone, misinformation, or plagiarism? Why on a comprehensive encyclopedia does a well written article about a notable item of technology in a piece of literature need to be removed? what exactly qualifies any article as not notable? there is a wikiproject to make comprehensive guides to anime and manga, it is a recognized cannon topic of Wikipedia. there is no reason to remove this article. Perhaps for some less notable articles and stubs on gundams/mobile suits the merger idea fits, but the lack of a gundampedia means this stuff has to be preserved somewhere at least for the purpose of keeping it available —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prawnshu (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment This stuff is already "preserved" rather well at sites like MAHQ. There is also a Gundam Wiki at gundam.wikia.com which has a copy of this article. I would say that the Neue Ziel is more "notable" than many of the Gundam articles currently up for deletion, in that it played a major part in a popular piece of animation (as compared to some of the MS-X stuff, which was never animated and in some cases never kitted, either.) If you ask "why must it be deleted?" I would counter "why must it be kept?" Retaining the article incurs a non-zero cost of various resources, as all articles do. The fact that most of the information in the article is fiction limits its useful benefits, as well as complicates the process of verifying the data. (Let's not forget that Sunrise has the ability to invalidate "factual" data on this machine at any time, and replace it arbitrarily with new data.) There is not a single real-world fact in that article - no mention of Gundam 0083, no mention of Akitaka Mika, not even any references to the real-world publications where the fictional data originated. (Most likely the info in the article was drawn from gaijin-friendly intermediate sources like MAHQ) As "notable" as the machine may be in Gundam's fictional history, I think the notability of the information provided in the article (useless, inconsistent statistics about its weight and thrust, backstory about its manufacture, etc.) is quite minimal. Zaku kai 20:37, 17 January 2007 (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.