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 - the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSK-008 Dijeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RMS-106 Hi-Zack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ENG-001 Estardoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RMS-019 Crouda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RMSN-002 Febral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RMSN-008 Bertigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DT-6600 Dautap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DTM-7000 Daughseat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Not one of these articles has any assertion of real world significance whatsoever. They are merely plot summaries.

Remember to rebut the points in the nomination when !voting keep. MER-C 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with main article on the Gundam series. No evidence of real-world significance or of passing WP:FICT, but I don't agree that it's OR (how can a direct description of the series be OR?). Walton monarchist89 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A plot summary is the editor who added it's interpretation of what happened on the show, unless it is sourced to the guys who created the show or similar reliable source. Hence original research. MER-C 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Far too much information here for a merge. riana_dzasta 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Riana said. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beware the tendency to want to spew articles all over Wikipedia to show how much one likes something. A fictional work does not need to have every bit of its content placed on Wikipedia. The editors did a nice job of creating detailed articles about something which they like, but there are no sources independent of their original research to verify the information, and no independent sources to show the subjects of the numerous individual articles are notable to any but the diehard fans, so these articles fail WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. Their time would be better spent creating and improving a single well written article, sourced to reliable and verifiable independent sources, and complying with WP:FICT. Articles could be created about any major characters, location, or gadgets which have multiple coverage in reliable independent sources, when those sections become too large for the main article.Edison 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If a corporation can make vast profits off of plastic model kits of these "non-notable fancruft" that in and of itself is worth keeping. At this time I direct your attention to Gaplant. Is that "sourced" enough for you? This type of work is presently being undertaken in other articles as people who own the suitable references have time to do them. I stress that this kind of rapid deletion of multiple articles concurrent with one another will not beget a better Wiki environment, especially when there are efforts under way to clean them up. Cooler heads prevail. MalikCarr 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like plenty of sources and references to me. Jtrainor 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How much money being made is not the topic, nor is the tolerably sourced Gaplant. The article has been unsourced, failing WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:N for over a FULL YEAR. Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make. Please, for example, give me where I can find the source for the statements made in one article about "Karaba didn’t have many resources", or about the SE-DJ-1R Dijeh SE-R variant. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you view the criteria for "asserting real-world notability" in WP: Gundam, namely the section detailing "notability" as including having merchandise of the item in question manufactured. As far as your criticism of the article's content itself, you have valid points, but in any other situation this article would be tagged with a "needs sourcing" or "needs cleanup" tag, as opposed to an AfD which seems to be the norm when dealing with Gundam-related articles. That is the heavy-handedness I speak of. When a Gundam article needs cleanup, or possibly a rewrite, it gets an AfD. Huzzah.MalikCarr 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make"? If that's not a reference, you'd be surprised how many articles would be considered "unsourced" on Wikipedia. MalikCarr 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I decided to go ahead and jump the gun on this one, as it were. A cursory glance over the first few pages of a Wiki search for "amazon.com" turned up hundreds of articles whose primary, or only, sources are from Amazon.com. Here's a few I picked out at random.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

I've never even heard of any of these things before. Are they notable? Shall we delete them too? MalikCarr 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(grimly) Indeed almost none of them belong... and will be dealt with. I plan to see if there are any available sources for any of them, then CSD most of them, because they are not sourced or verifiable. And I agree: when things aren't sourced and they can easily be sourced then the answer isn't deletion. But when you have an article full of statements, none of which can be backed up, and then someone throws a bunch of almost identical links up that neither a) back up any of these ascertations made in the article or b) prove it's notability then no, they aren't valid. To answer your point about notability, WP:FICT is pretty firm that minor characters should be merged into main articles. You should know what sourcing is. MSZ-006_Zeta_Gundam is sourced. The links added to the articles in this AFD are not. Not only is this link in Japanese (thus we have no clue what it says) but a Google search fails to turn up anything to source most of the statements in that article with. No one is "gunning" for Gundam articles. As far as WP:GUNDAM's statements on notability, I would like to point out that first we go by policy, second, since I'm appearantly too tired to find what you're talking about, I'd like a link, and finally, if it IS manufactured, you'd think it would be somewhat easy to find a link in ENGLISH showing that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English link showing that. You could even buy one if you want.

WP:Gundam#Wikipedia's Stand on Fictional Mechanical Units and Items - The Super Robot Wars mention is especially inclusive, since that has "real world notability" as a non-Gundam material.

If it's content in the article that's irritating the voters here, I would happily reword it to a more factual stance. I was operating under the impression that we are experiencing a purge of Gundam-related articles, starting with the mobile weapons themselves, for as of yet undisclosed reasons, and that no amount of cleaning up relevant articles would amount to anything. At any rate, I've provided an additional (non-Amazon.com) link with further evidence of real-world existence. MalikCarr 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more for good measure - This is a top-grade resin kit for serious modellers. MalikCarr 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that the article is astonishingly light on the real world notability you claim for it. The reason that you claim to see a run on Gundam articles is that , like your own notability guideline says , there are a LOT of them fail to have "any real world significant other than being one of the items in the series" , in which case "the real world impact is by the series itself instead of the mecha." An article on the various Karaba gundams would be fine, but the reason so many Gundam articles have been deleted -- in my opinion, since I only took part in a handful of the debates -- is that most of them simply don't have enough material to stand on their own. That's something WP:GUNDAM or even Wikia Gundam will have to consider. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is by no means a good article, or even a fair article. What baffles me is that, rather than attempt to improve it, the status quo here is to delete it. Presently, I am drafting a quick rewrite that will detail some of my above points (e.g. has two Bandai model kits in its likeness, appeared in the most-definately-notable Super Robot Wars series on numerous occassions, was piloted by Gundam franchise protagonist Amuro Ray, etc etc). I'd also like to clean up the language of the article as well, since the sentences don't flow well and are kinda jumbled in some areas. However, I really don't see much of a point in this endeavour, since far better articles have already been deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, according to a select few Wikipedians with a battery of people who will support their AfDs. I desperately try to assume good faith in these situations, but the heavyhandedness of these AfDs is really getting to me. MalikCarr 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would seem Bandai has done me the favor anyway. I forgot they had a North American English-language Gundam website up. How silly of me. The relevant page contains many of the contested points above. Is *this* enough of a reliable source? MalikCarr 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone ahead and added the relevant references, "non-reference" Amazon.com links as well as the Gundam Official page and what have you to the Hi-Zack article too. Just so we're clear on things, I believe the criteria erroneously suggested to delete these article(s) does hold true for some of the Gundam X mobile weapons that have been AfD's above. Gundam X hasn't seen much exposure outside Japan, and what's more, only its title mobile weapons have had merchandise made of them by Bandai, which, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be a good criteria for notability. MalikCarr 11:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not even going to debate my completely valid points anymore? Outstanding. Oh well, seems this article is going the way of the Dodo as well, seeing as the head count- I mean, "concensus" is coming up soon. MalikCarr 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy off-wiki. I would appreciate debating the larger issues of notability, reliable sources, etc somewhere else than here, preferably where a concensus can be worked out and something positive and good for the encyclopedia can be proposed. Please contact me via email. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Dijeh and HiZack articles, at least, look like they have plenty of sourcing. And "I haven't heard of it" is not proof of non-notability. Redxiv 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.