Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA2 Moebius

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 Delete. "Keep" with no coherent rationale is a vote, but AFD is not a vote, civility notwithstanding. - crz crztalk 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS-MA2 Moebius

TS-MA2 Moebius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The curftiest of fancrufts. Entirely original research. Written as "in universe". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, it does "cite" some fan sites, but I still believe that there's OR going on there. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You believe that there's OR here? I just believe that OR is minor part to whole article and could be fix, not delete it. L-Zwei 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft, portrays fiction as fact ST47Talk 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpins 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: the topic itself is not original research, which means that original research is not grounds for deletion of the article. Be bold! Delete the original research, not the entire article. An "in-universe perspective" is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Nobody here has advocated any valid argument for deletion, so I have voted keep by default. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A lack of verifiability, a lack of notability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information are all perfectly valid reasons for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For verifiability, the article does cited its source. For not an indiscriminate collection of information, the article isn't FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, textbook nor plot summary. Finally, for notability, while being "grunt"-type machine, it's one that cause whole conflict in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and spawn various variations, two of them used by one of main character (actually, I plan to merge another article into this, if only it survive this nomination). Still don't think it's notable? Of cause, nothing interesting if you don't interest in that subject. For extreme example, I never interesting in American history at all, so even someone like Thomas Jefferson isn't noatble to me. L-Zwei 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 1. Notability is not subjective. Thomas Jefferson is notable because he meets several of our notability guidelines for people. Whether or not a lone editor finds a topic interesting or not is completely irrelevant. 2. "Finally, for notability, while being "grunt"-type machine, it's one that cause whole conflict in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and spawn various variations, two of them used by one of main character...Still don't think it's notable?" OK. You have not asserted the significance of the subject of this article. You have simply recounted the plot of a children's television show. 3. "...the article isn't FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, textbook nor plot summary". Yes it is, it's a plot summary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that you call Gundam a "children's television show" demonstrates that you have no understanding of the subject whatsoever. Gundam SEED in particular was actually rather controversial in Japan because of its content. Try coming back to the conversation when you've got something more productive to say than "it's not relevant to my interests so it's not relevant to anybody's interests. Iceberg3k 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at point 1 above, I have stated exactly the opposite. If, after reading this article, I have no understanding of the topic, then that probably says as much about the value of the article as it does about me. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's part of an overall project to list the various mechanics of the Gundam SEED anime. I don't see why the fact it's discussing fictional mechanics should matter. Wikipedia is supposed to collect all notable information of humanity and that includes works of fiction--HellCat86 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT, which states that even characters (i.e. actual people who do actual things) should get no more than brief coverage in a consolidated article unless they are both widely recognised and utterly central to the work in which they feature. This isn't even a character, it's... uh... OK, I can't actually quite work out what it is from the article. Some kind of combat robot? Whatever it is, it's not important enough to need so much detail (detail which is inadequately referenced). Take it to some kind of Gundam wiki. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dumping-ground for fictional specifications of non-existent robots. — Haeleth Talk 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I love how when people don't have an interest in a fictional entry they start calling for it to be taken to a specialised Wiki. Is this article hurting anybody via its existence? I've seen far more obsecure and useless entries then this (eg, a few months ago I stumbled on a entry for a bunch of one off villains from a straight-to-video Home Alone movie)--HellCat86 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 1. You have stumbled into Uncle G's "If Article X then Article Y" fallacy. The simple existence of comparable articles is not a precedent for this one being kept. 2. Who is this hurting? Well, firstly it's wasting space on Wikimedia's servers. More importantly, by not obeying some of our core policies (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT) it's damaging Wikipedia's reputation. 3. If I believed there was an encyclopaedia article to be had on this topic then I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Haeleth: Gundamcruft part 43789, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collecting of trivia. What is an M58E4 Gatling gun ? A wire-guided gunbarrel pod (rapid-fire railgun) ? What possible use is this article to anyone who hasn't already studied the fictional material from which it is taken in ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment As much use as Enterprise_(NX-01) is to anyone who who hasn't studied the fictional material from which it came from. No idea what a Triton-class spatial torpedoes is.

• KeepJ'onn J'onzz 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Quiddity99 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Quiddity99
• Delete Maybe a general article on the weapons in this anime course be valid, but I can't see how a separate article for each one is needed. Denaar 12:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not an enemy of anime articles, but this fails notability by a longshot from a wire-guided gunbarrel pod. Dekimasu 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, and too much OR. WMMartin 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. We've already been through waves and waves of Gundam-related deletionist nonsense before. Iceberg3k 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "Keep" with no coherent rationale is avote, but AFD is not a vote. That's three keeps without any logic, one of which is incivil into the bargain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not uncivility, just fact combined with brusqueness. This AfD covers the exact same alleged ground as several AfD attempts on Gundam articles before. It's pure egocentrism at its finest. An article of this type takes up at most a handful of kilobytes, and is virtually invisible to anybody who doesn't go explicitly looking for it (I say "virtually" because there's a one in one-point-five-million chance that it could be randomly pulled up by somebody hitting the "Random article" link). However, for the people who DO go looking for it (unless they're looking for it for the purpose of agitating the feces), it's invaluable. The information included is purposeful, not random, so "indiscriminate collection" doesn't fit. "Original research" is incorrect - the article is just cited poorly. In-universe perspective, as mentioned, is grounds for a rewrite, not for deletion. And WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. That basically leaves the nominator's personal preference as a reason for deletion, which is insufficient. Going by the precedent of previous Gundam-related AfDs, this discussion should be closed. This ground has already been trod. Iceberg3k 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Uncle G's notability essay - read it at User:Uncle G/On notability - is always good when it comes to cruft. Where are the third-party sources ? How could a reader verify that "the TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero served as the basis for a more advanced design fielded in late CE 73, the TS-MA4F Exass" ? Or that "very few Gunbarrel Strikers are produced" ? The article is not verifiable, the subject is not notable, the likelihood of original research is compelling. True, "an article of this type takes up at most a handful of kilobytes, and is virtually invisible to anybody who doesn't go explicitly looking for it". What separates Wikipedia from Uncyclopedia is that this is an encyclopedia and has guidelines on content. If you want to create a Gundam Wiki, to document every last detail, Wookiepedia and the Runescape Wiki have shown the way. And yes, this ground has indeed been well trodden. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professions (World of Warcraft), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Simpsons (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional inventions and machines on The Simpsons and there are hundreds more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 29 November 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.