- YMS-15 Gyan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Article was speedy deleted without satisfying speedy deletion criteria. The normal AFD process should have been gone through. Article should be restored and re-nominated for AFD. --Polaron | Talk 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It satisfied CSD criteria G4: "Previously deleted". As I noted in the close, it was already deleted. Therefor, it can be speedied. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Please don't bring something here because the form wasn't filled in - tell us that the article is a loss because of it and we'll consider. 2) It was deleted as a recreation after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja and in any case the AfD that was speedily closed was already pointing to a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMS-15 Gyan. So, whilst this may or may not have been a valid speedy as recreation (I don't know), it would have been a valid close per WP:SNOW. So, in the absence of any evidence that this is a loss to Wikipedia - keep deleted per evident consensus.--Docg 21:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- A good number of comments on the R-Jarja AFD indicated that they were voting to delete only that article. There is no consensus to delete all the articles on the template. This particular case of the Gyan is actually notable because it is a *major* "character". Please give enough time for interested editors to weigh in on the debate. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Also noting it was not unanimous for deletion (18 delete, 7 merge, 12 keep). I see you were referring to the Gyan AFD not the R-Jarja one. In any case, it has only been 18 hours between nomination and deletion. Other people have not had a chance to weigh in. --Polaron | Talk 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh, which specifically delt with a mass of 'em. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- While these should have probably been merged to a list article, those have no bearing on the case of the Gyan. My point is these things should be looked at on a case by case basis. These "mobile suits" have widely varying degrees of significance. Just because a few were deleted does not mean all should be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- In my view, the article should have been merged into a list of minor weapons in the Gundam universe. I am failing to see how WP:SNOW applies as there might have been momentum moving towards a merge. --Edwin Herdman 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Restore and resend to AfD. Another example of someone in a freaken hurry to close ending up taking more of our time. This turns on the question: did the Delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja cover all the articles in Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons? This is not entirely clear. The nominator there said that he would have liked to include all the articles in this template, but couldn't for unspecified technical reasons ("...this is part of a larger AfD i would like to create, but its beyond any practical abilities to do so..."). Thus it's not at all clear to me that all of the commentors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja believed that they were commenting on the entire mass of articles rather than just the single article AMX-104 R-Jarja. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja does cover all the articles in Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons, why are almost all of these still bluelinked? It looks like the closing editor thought that the AfD covered only the one article, and the closing editor's belief matters considerably, therefore the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMS-15 Gyan was out of line. In short, either all the articles at Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons should be deleted, or else YMS-15 Gyan should be restored. Since the former is not going to happen and this discussion has no authority to force it, the latter become operative, therefore the article should be restored and relisted. Herostratus 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, no reason to do anything else as far as I can see, outside of process-wonkery. Doubtless WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS feels like a valid reason, but it isn't. Consensus is clear: utterly unsourced game-guides fanpieces on these subjects is not encyclopaedic as well as failing core policy. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think consensus is clear. Some of these have been kept and others deleted depending on their significance within the series and outside. This is one of the more significant ones and should be discussed fully. As I said, there is no consensus to delete all such articles. The point is it was speedy-deleted as recreated deleted material when it wasn't previously deleted and there was no consensus to delete this particular article in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Restore per Herostratus's reasoning, which is entirely sound. If there's any doubt at all, a stronger consensus should be formed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, I suppose - the only reason why some of these mobile suit articles are still around is that I got tired of nominating them. Per Guy, Gundam articles have a long and inglorious history of being useless. Swat the rest, as well, until any of them actually cite reliable sources that assert real-world notability. Process should not get in the way of the right thing. Moreschi Talk 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Would the popular clamor for Bandai to create a Master Grade series model kit be good enough? There are also several plastic model kit guides that featured the Gyan. Also, there was a TV network decision to introduce the Gyan because of a slump in ratings at the time. The decision to introduce the Gyan is related to the "new enemy mecha of the week" formula that other popular anime robot shows were doing but which Gundam tried to initially avoid. Unfortunately most books on the real world significance of these are only published in Japan and I am no longer in Japan. I'll see if I can find people to help out. What I am saying is that while 90% of all the Gundam mecha articles are indeed "unencyclopedic", some of them actually are encuyclopedic and this is potentially one of them. All I am asking for is allow for a wider group of people to comment on the deletion discussion. --Polaron | Talk 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- If specific items are indeed notable -- and as far as I'm concerned, showing up in some glossy otaku magazine doesn't count -- then cough up the ones for the specific items instead of attempting a runaround of past AFDs. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- But there was no consensus to delete all items in that Gundam template in any past AFD so this is not a "runaround of past AFDs". The current AFD wasn't allowed to finish. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should say "Falling back on rules-lawyering and nitpicking to attempt to cast doubt on general editorial judgment passed along by past AFDs", then. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't follow the Gundam mecha article deletion debates so I might be missing something. But the R-Jarja debate mentioned above definitely didn't show consensus for a blanket deletion and only a slim majority for the R-Jarja. What past AFDs are you referring to that show a clear consensus for deleting the Gyan article? --Polaron | Talk 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, per Guy. Herostratus's reasoning was a whole lot of smoke that obscured more than it illuminated. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse strongly per Guy: failing core policy. The fact that other articles of this type aren't yet nominated doesn't mean anything. They will be nominated (and eventually deleted), you can count on that. -- Ekjon Lok 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- But that doesn't mean they should be speedy deleted on sight. All I am asking for is go through the process. A small number of these are significant enough to merit an article. --Polaron | Talk 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, and what do you suppose this particular AfD was about to result in, after 5 days? It got 5 "delete" votes (not counting the nomination!) in less than 20 hours. Was there any hope it would get even a single "keep" vote? Not a chance of a snowball in hell! The "delete" closure was entirely appropriate. This is not (yet) about all those articles in Gundam template. The AfD nomination (and deletion) was about a single article. That article did indeed fail core policies, and was rightly deleted. -- Ekjon Lok 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hasn't anybody even thought of redirecting most of the mecha articles to a list article to discourage people from creating these articles anymore and we don't have to discuss deletions and so forth? I don't have a strong opinion on the deletion and have only passing familiarity with the subject so the end result for me doesn't really matter. But I don't think you can say for sure that not a single keep/merge/redirect would appear within the regular AFD time frame. I don't think the WikiProject covering this was even informed of the debate. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - It fits under the umbrella of the previous AfD, and was valid. In any case, it wouldn't pass anyway if it was re-run. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
|
