Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass

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 of the debate was keep all as per other recent deletion nominations related to this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GAT-X102_Duel_Gundam for detailed analysis of arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS-MA4F Exass, TS-MB1B Euclid, TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande, YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah, YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe

More Gundamcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information, unencyclopedic, appeals to a niche audience, original research. Please keep the personal comments out of this discussion. If you need to attack me, second-guess me or otherwise question my motives, leave a message on my talk page. Mangojuice's objection to small group nominations is noted, however, I don't see an alternative. Brian G. Crawford 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki Seriously, I haven't heard a reasonable argument to keep these articles on Wikipedia. They're on the Gundam Wiki. What's the point? Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we don't need to have any Gundam content at all. Or Star Wars or Star Trek, for that matter, since they've got Wikis too. For that matter, nearly everything on Wikipedia can be found somewhere else on the Internet (though not necessarily on a Wiki). If information being available somewhere else is in and of itself a reason for deletion, then Wikipedia serves no purpose. Also, the fact that people went to the trouble of creating a Wiki solely to contain these articles certainly can't make them less notable. Redxiv 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete übercruft. Transwiki to what? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a Gundam wiki. And most of these articles are there already, but arguments for transfering the articles wholesale, history and all, have some validity IMO. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the countless other Gundam AfDs from today. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it would be nice to keep these articles. Adv193 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. See other AFDs. Kotepho 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki --Yannick 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per others. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Some interesting stuff here but doesn't belong here.--Cini 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep once again, a group nomination. I brought the alternative to the nominator's attention on his talk page: either make one big group nomination, or nominate individual articles. All this small group business does is fragment the debate. For those who don't know what I'm referring to, see the other three nominations of groups of Gundam robots, all currently active. Mangojuice 05:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. (Posted in other pages too...) Golux Ex Machina 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. Aeon 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I see no reason for them to be deleted, they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. I really wish you would stop nominating this stuff, but that's obviously not going to happen. Calaschysm 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Calaschysm most here want to see it transwikied not deleted per say Aeon 06:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I was responding to it being on "articles for deletion" though I guess that covers transwiki...ing as well. Calaschysm 07:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as per my reasoning in the other Gundam AfDs. Redxiv 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because the subject of the article is fictional does not mean that article should be deleted. NoIdeaNick 12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as per my reasons in the other Gundam AfDs. L-Zwei 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Star Wars comparison is worthless, because Star Wars is well known, and this isn't. GWO
  • Comment That's why sales of Gundam model kits have made billions and billions of dollars, right? Calaschysm 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & merge per my comments on earlier AfD's... this should all be handles as one big AfD or each individually though... really this small group stuff is getting tedious.--Isotope23 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As outlined already, I object to the creation of multiple AfDs for small groups of articles without outlining the criteria by which they are divided. It only serves to complicate the debating process and comes accross as obnoxiousness rather than a legitimate concearn regarding the articles in question. Argument about the subject matter should be postponed untill all these AfDs are concatinated approrpriately. --KefkaTheClown 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series. Then nominate all USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it these articles violate none of wikipedia's article rules, there is no reason why they should be deleted. Fact that someone can argue that Star Wars is different is completely selfish, you may not like the subject of the article, but that gives someone no right to delete it because of that fact. Star Wars and Star Treck should both be on the choping block to if these articles are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP as other users above have explained. Lone Jobber 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the church did have a reason to keep all the old stuff around: Classical education was important for the churchmen, who had to know the historical context of the scriptures they were reading, even if the historical context was seen in a light that glorified the Christian church above competing schools of thought. 'Bible only' is a relatively modern invention in the history of Christianity. Iceberg3k 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE there are related mass deletion requests in recent days 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT correct merge target is : Cosmic Era Mobile Units
  • DELETE 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Fan yes, "cruft" no. all of the information in the articles is a compilation of information that can be found elsewhere. one thing that people have forgotten is that if these articles should be deleted, then all X-Men, Superman and the rest of the American comic book characted should also be deleted. to those that say that the Gundams/Mobile Suits that have been put up for deletion are not major people are basicaly saying that any articles about Klingons, Stromtroopers, and other such things should be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP MarineCorps 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions. However, there are too many sources to actually list. This entire thing seems rather random and pointless, really.--DNAlpha 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment none the less, it would be a good idea to find a source that verifies the technical statistics...--KefkaTheClown 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply MAHQ.com its all there
  • Transwiki to the Gundam section of Wikia. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimina collection of information. Stifle (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 21:48, 29 April 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.