Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSM-07 Z'Gok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Avi 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSM-07 Z'Gok

MSM-07 Z'Gok (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. Moreschi Deletion! 09:48, 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 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:31, 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. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 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 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:38, 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 00:27, 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 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for any number of reasons. Yes, I feel the same about the lightsaber and deathstar. Feel free to nominate them and I'll vote in support. I feel a certain amount of Gundam information could be appropriate on Wikipedia - but it should focus more on summary information rather than in-depth on every little facet of the fictional world. Real-world information on Gundam would be great, too, as few places provide anything about that. Zaku kai 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Oh, and Zaku kai? You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? The fact that your account was apparently created today and your only "contributions" to Wikipedia are voting in a few AfDs (these aren't elections, so "vote" isn't really the right term, but whatever), not to mention your silly assertion that Death Star and Lightsaber should be deleted because they're fictional, make me doubt you're actually a serious contributor. Redxiv 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Redxiv: if you'd like to discuss my history as part of the Gundam fan community, or my history of (admittedly minor, previously anonymous) contributions to Wikipedia, feel free to go to my talk page and I'll be happy to enlighten you. IMO this is not the place for that discussion - and please consider that the quality of the message does not depend on the history of the messenger. Everyone starts somewhere. My questioning of the Lightsaber article is serious - regardless of the quality of the information in there (which I do enjoy!) I am not convinced that that kind of information belongs here. So if someone wants to claim that article's existence as somehow being a compelling reason why some other article should also exist, I don't buy it. I recognize that my opinion about fictional articles isn't shared universally - and that's why I'm participating in this dialogue rather than trying to assert my opinion more forcibly. The Z'Gok is a fairly prominent machine in Gundam, for a couple episodes at least, but I don't believe this level of depth of fictional information is worth having in an encyclopedia. MAHQ provides most of this information already, and with somewhat more reliable accountability for the sources of the data. And efforts like the Gundam Wiki are in the process of establishing themselves - and would be quite perfect for this kind of information. Zaku kai 20:00, 17 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)
  • Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?). Also, assertion that the article isn't written in a "real-world perspective" (while this this seems completely subjective and a questionalble assertion to me), even if true, isn't grouds for deletion, as it's a simple matter to re-write information from a different perspective. If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through. Xenon Zaleo 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pak21 and Moreschi. It is completely in-universe POV = Gundam guide = unencyclopedic. --maclean 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Suit plays a strong role in the invasion of Jaburo from the Original Mobile Suit Gundam.--Scotterdoos 12:12, 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.