Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RGC-83 GM Cannon II

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 consensus to delete, default to keep. It's a redirect now, presumably somebody merged the content. Sandstein 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RGC-83 GM Cannon II

RGC-83 GM Cannon II (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. What is more, apparently these "Specifications" are often rigged by fans to make my weapon seem more powerful than yours, so yet more WP:OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:14, 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 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:32, 10 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, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. Articles should not be deleted if they can be sourced. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - merge to what? At the moment, there's nothing to merge to. And WP:V is non-negotiable and if stuff is unsourced is should be deleted right now. This stuff gives no assertion that it's anything other than OR and large parts of the conjecture read as WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - and read WP:V. The onus is on you, not me, to find the sources. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:21, 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 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironically wasn't that the original purpose for Wikipedia? To be an indiscriminate collection of information?69.244.126.189 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Pak21 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The last time I checked, which was recently, encyclopedia's are also indiscriminate sources of knowledge. Not to mention Wikipedia's own mission statement is to be a collection of information. Simply because you don't know, like, or enjoy the information is not just cause to go deleting it. Which is why merging this information would be so much easier and more true to the spirit and point of Wikipedia's existance. 69.244.126.189 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment While encyclopedias cover a wide range of topics, it's not correct to say they are indiscriminate. If you submitted your own life story to an encyclopedia, would they publish it? Most likely not. They are not indiscriminate, they have an editorial process which determines what content is appropriate. The same is true here. Wikipedia can not be, and never can be, a collection of all the facts that exist. Technical limitations and manpower limitations prevent that. Therefore, some information must be considered too trivial, too unreliable, or too useless to retain. I believe the appropriate course of action would be to move most of this stuff to Gundam Wiki, and on Wikipedia focus on real-world information about what Gundam is, and its real-world history. And I think we should take a good, long look at Lightsaber and Death Star, too - how much of that information really belongs in an encyclopedia? Zaku kai 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:35, 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 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 'cause everybody knows the GM Cannon II isn't as cool as the MP Guncannon - er, I mean because information about particular, individual MS from the various series, many of which differ in no real relevant way beyond their stylistic appearance, is too much in-depth information about fiction for a factual, encyclopedic article. Zaku kai 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "I'm not a fan" and "It's fancruft! I know because I've never heard of it!" are not valid reasons for deletion. Redxiv 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Only if they also ignore the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. You've "cited policy" in that you claim it "reads like original research", but you haven't actually shown any actual original research. Redxiv 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "The GM Cannon II is also heavier armed than its predecessors. It is equipped with two shoulder-mounted beam cannons, un-like the Guncannon, and can carry a 90 mm machine gun as well as a beam saber for close combat. It also includes two 60 mm vulcan guns mounted in the head, but these are usually strictly last-resort weapons. To power this strong weapons the GM Cannon II has a stronger reactor. It is also very heavily armored, featuring Chobham armor based of the same design as the RX-78NT1 Gundam 'Alex'. However, it pays the price for this durability for this with very low speed and mobility. A GM Cannon II on its own has been shown to not be able to fend for itself due to opponents being able to outmanuver it, unless its opponent also lacks speed."
• As all of that is completely unreferenced, for all I know chances are it is original research. And do you see any sources? Certainly fails WP:V. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try here, at Bandai's official English-language Gundam site. Lack of references in the article doesn't mean they don't exist and the content is original research, it means that the article needs work. Redxiv 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Merge This mecha certianly isn't notable enough to deserve it's own article, but as it fails to violate any of the condictions established by WP:FICT the rules in place to govern all Fictional Articles I don't see why perfectly good information should be thrown away simply because people want to delete it rather then put effort into cleaning it up. 69.244.126.189 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to RGM-79 GM. Cleanup and source it, while we're at it -- the sources are out there, primarily from the MS Encyclopedia series of source books published in Japan. I like Gundam, but there could be a lot less clutter and pointlessly-seperated Gundam entries -- Universal Century especially -- on Wikipedia. Maikeru 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 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.