Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gundam (Phase I)

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 no decision, malformed, try again later at own discretion. - brenneman 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All articles that have been merged into Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe

Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An incredibly massive amount of articles in the Gundam series that I merged into this article. Once you've seen one, you've basically seen them all. Medium-sized articles of non-notable fictional weapons. ~ Flameviper 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Here's a list if you want to see them: FA-010A FAZZ - FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type - FD-03 Gustav Karl - MSA-007 Nero - MSA-0011 (MSZ-011) S Gundam - RAG-79 Aqua GM - RB-79 (RX-76) Ball - RGC-80 GM Cannon – RGC-83 GM Cannon II - RGM-79 (RX-79) GM - RGM-86R GM III – RGM-89 Jegan - RGZ-91 Re-GZ - RX-104FF Penelope - RX-75 Guntank - RX-77 Guncannon - RX-78 Gundam - RX-78GP Gundam GP series - RX-79 Gundam - RX-93 Nu Gundam - MSZ-006+ (MSK-006) Zeta Plus - TGM-79 (RGM-79T) GM Trainer)

• Merge the rest of them in. Split the page if you need more space. --Ineffable3000 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Othwerwise, Redirect as redundant. ~ Flameviper 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize that if these are merged, they can't be deleted, right? Edit history must be maintained for all of them. --- RockMFR 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect except for those that are already under AfD. Redirects for those articles should only be created after those AfDs are over. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't imagine this ending in any other way than a train wreck. Copy and paste merge of all of them has merely created an enormous nightmare out of many bad articles. None of the articles even link to this discussion. Some of these articles already have their own discussions which are trainwrecking as we speak (RX-78 Gundam has been included in THREE DIFFERENT NOMINATIONS). Anyone with any sense will run away from this nomination as fast as possible. --- RockMFR 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/redirect pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per pretty much all the keep votes above. The merge that has been done has made an utter trainwreck of the articles, it needs to be undone and redone properly. Kyaa the Catlord 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I can fix that. And also, is there an option to close the debate with "trainwreck"? ~ Flameviper 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  You can close it by withdrawing the nomination. This is especially helpful if the nomination is too ambiguous that editors don't know what is being nominated in the first place, which seems to be the case. --Farix (Talk) 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the new article's a mess, but frankly, I'd rather have some centralized discussion there, rather than having it carry on in twenty different AfDs for twenty different articles. Quack 688 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with the fact that we need to close this because it will be a desator. I may be wrong but I think that we should blank Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe and do a set of proper mergers. I would also wait for the end of the AFD of RX-78 Gundam before merging that one because it that one appears to have a decent chance of surviving AFD and it also makes little sense to have the same article as a part of 3 ongoing AFDs. There would be a lot of confusion if it was kept in its AFD and deleted here for example. I think it is too probablamatic. --65.95.16.65 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly what do you mean by "proper merge"? You are looking at 16 different articles here (and probably two of those could have standalone articles other then RX-78 Gundam). Unless you are suggesting a history merge, in which case blanking the merged article is completely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see a need to blank the new page. The new page gives editors familiar with the subject an opportunity to start creating a decent list out of the mass-merge, while removing unencyclopedic detail from minor units. Its talk page could also be used to discuss which units are notable enough for their own articles. I think that a less-inflamed forum than AfD for that discussion might be useful at this time. Quack 688 12:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  This is precisely what is happening in WP:GUNDAM, btw. Kyaa the Catlord 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Postpone discussion until the current set of Gundam AfDs have finished. At the moment, this is just going to generate more heat than light --Pak21 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Per ANI, the nominator's account has been blocked due to it being compromised. Could we get this article withdrawn for this reason? Kyaa the Catlord 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe is not arranged at all, and content is incorrect, and it is a very incomprehensible page. You should just leave an original page. --shikai shaw 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe is admittedly a trainwreck, but it's a work in progress. It is no more "incorrect" than the previous pages, as it is merely a master page that includes the exact content of all the subpages. What do you even mean by "original page"? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least we should keep RX-78 Gundam because that survivied a recent AFD attempt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.172.30 (talk) 00:45, 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.