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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RX-78 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When I came across this article and saw the template at the bottom of the page, I thought "You've gotta be kidding!" This article forms part of a massive walled garden of more than 100 articles of pure, unadultered, unverifiable through reliable non-fan sources and non-notable fancruft. Only one article is nominated here to set a precedent. Contested prod. MER-C 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As mentioned before, the Gundam is not only a hero in a pop cultural series, but is a world known icon. If people are so bent on deleting this, then why don't they want to delete the Luke Skywalker page. What's with all this picking on Gundam? TurnATitans

Note: In addition to this AfD, there is also a similar AfD with regards to the Early Universal Century Mobile weapons template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja- if a precedent is set by these, it would apply to all the template articles listed. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I personally understand it, the RX-78 and direct variants are the main vehicles used by Earth in the Gundam (Universal Century) anime series, and as such would be the most "deserving" article of this collection to remain. -- saberwyn 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Japanese cultural icon, and the main character of a huge franchise. Very much so notable. Yzak Jule 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Yzak Jule 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quoth WP:FICT: "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot". If these cartoon robots are indeed cultural icons (beyond the franchise of which they are part), I suggest producing reliable sources to that effect. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply The article in question does precisely this! Did you read the article first before voting? I would remind the closing admin that AfD is NOT A VOTE. Kyaa the Catlord 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the only refs in the article at the time IslaySolomon made his comment were links to a Japanese language encyclopedia's book sales page on Amazon.co.jp. Since Islay made his comment, further reference links have been added, but these do not show "cultural influence" Bwithh 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously you did not read anything at all. Having appearance in another anime is good enough to be cultural influence, not to mention the Pepsi cap collection, garage kit model by independent parties and following series using its name Gundam as a subtitle for a series of mecha. MythSearcher^talk 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I did read the references - being one part in a video game which is about anime robots anyway, being a "cameo" in another cartoon, and being part of a Pepsi promo campaign involving gundam toys are not I would call "cultural influence". You really need to tone down the attitude, if you want to persuade people by the way Bwithh 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then what is this "cultural influence" references you are seeking for, you name it, I will show it to you. I am tired of me showing a bunch of references and deletionist keep saying those are not cultural references. BTW, the Sgt. Frog appearance is not just cameo, the main character in that series built a model of RX-78 and even got a suit that is exactly like RX-78(only the head is removed so that Keroro himself could be place there instead). This is enough to show "cultural influence" of this specified mecha as an cultural icon in anime for me. MythSearcher^talk 16:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See Simpsons#Cultural_impact for an example of a sensible and substantive cultural influence/impact section. Promotional toys, video games that are directly about anime robots and a minor appearance in a cartoon ("cameo" was a term used by whoever wrote that part of the article, not just me) are things which belong in a other appearances in pop culture trivia section, and are not evidence that this robot has influenced other cultural activities in a substantial, meaningful way. Bwithh 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Two part !vote For the "real life" section - properly reference and contextualize the claims to be a cultural icon by the end of this afd. If this is done - keep. If not, then delete. For the "In fiction" section-which-is-actually-an-excuse-for-a-mountain-of-unencyclopedic-fancruft - delete all the robot descriptions and pictures i.e. 95-100% of this section. Actually, since this robot thingy is NOT REAL, the whole point of an "In Fiction" section is somewhat misleading. If a little bit is kept, section should be renamed or rethought.Bwithh 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per IslaySolomon. Not connected to reality. This wiki is for earthlings MiracleMat 07:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply Did you bother to read the article? It discusses the real world design, the pop culture impact and then goes into the mecha's involvement in the plot of the First Gundam series. And, to blatantly snarky, the majority of characters in Gundam are Earthlings. Kyaa the Catlord 12:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  see above Bwithh 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series --Squilibob 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is sad that WP:GUNDAM has continued to fail to deal with these articles. They should be the ones cleaning up this crap, yet I've never seen anything in this project ever get merged. It is impossible to judge each of these individual subjects on their own merits, as almost every single article looks and reads exactly the same. Users supporting the inclusion of ANY of these articles should take a look at the fine work WP:PCP has done. If there continues to be no improvement in this walled garden of crap, all of it will need to go. As far as I understand, all of it already exists on another wiki, and apparently most of the information was ripped from a single Gundam website. --- RockMFR 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'd say merge to one single article for each series/OAV/movie. At the worst, redirect to the Gundam television show it is in. The information is reasonably keepable, but if it isn't properly organized, I suppose it might be a bit much. FrozenPurpleCube 08:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (for now) there is also AMX-104 R-Jarja listed above --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, then Delete per nom. But make sure they're actually transwikied this time. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Holding on that. Some should be deleted, yes, but people need to calm down and get a plan going. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep switching to full keep support. Yes, a lot of Gundam articles need to be deleted, but the nom picked the wrong example article. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - And who exactly would want this pile of nonsense? Delete , then take a look at dissassembling Wikiproject Gundam, which clearly isn't doing a lot of good in building a verifiable set of Gundam articles. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  re WikiProject Gundam: erm, that's a bit uncalled for. You could say that WP:ANIME or WP:TV is also just as much to blame. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Transwiki to some sort of Gundam-themed Wikia if one exists. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need for an article on every single Mobile Suit in the Gundam universes. Wikipedia should only have articles on major mobile suits, and not utilize a template that fills up most of a computer screen, one with a resolution of 1920x1200 like my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Major mobile suits"... which this is. -- saberwyn 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not tell that this was a notable mobile suit in the series with a general reading; there was just so much information that obscured the fact that this was the mobile suit first used in Mobile Suit Gundam, the original series. I am withdrawing my delete with a keep based on the massive clean-up of the article—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cruft, which is a shorthand for "Article written in an in-universe tone about a non-notable fan-specific topic, full of iriginal research, hearsay and fan speculation. If the image of this suit is the one that is used on T-shirts and so on all the time, this should be mentioned in the main Gundam article, this does not warrant an article. As Elaragirl said, I suggest we take a good hard look at whether Wikiproject:Gundam is actually benefitting the encyclopaedia at all in its current form. Proto::► 09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and could someone please advise me when the rest of this walled garden is put up for deletion. Thanks. Proto::► 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't notice this second comment. WP:GUNDAM only became WP:GUNDAM after the last big Gundam AfD, which was a little over a month ago. Before that it was labeled as a more specific project for a specific Gundam series, and hadn't attracted much attention. These AfDs are actually helping that WikiProject to do more and providing a place to organize the post-AfD cleanup. WikiProjects are places of collaboration first, and points of blame second. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And to clarify, the group before becoming WP:GUNDAM was so inactive that it wouldn't be accurate to blame it for the articles getting this bad. They didn't help the situation, but they didn't cause it. -- Ned Scott 10:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair point and something I wasn't aware of - I've retracted that part of my comment. Proto::► 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That only leaves cruft as your only argument for deletion. Cruft alone is not a legitimate reason for deletion. The article has to have problems with one or more of Wikipedia's policies and notability guidelines. And Wikipedia's own policies is to cleanup articles on notable subjects rather then delete them. --Farix (Talk) 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I have expanded upon my reasoning. Proto::► 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a really well-written article and I enjoyed reading it - but it does not belong here - 1) transwiki it 2) take a good hard look at this rest of this garden and 3) a non-gundam fan should join the Wikiproject to give them a bit of perspective. --Charlesknight 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: crufty walled garden, notability not asserted. MaxSem 10:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply Notability not asserted? Again, see the cultural impact section of the article. This mobile suit is a pop culture icon in Japan. Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — and most of the other articles of this kind. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could advise the group of editors on how to set up their own wiki? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment http://gundam.wikia.com -- Ned Scott 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, fair enough. If the material doesn't exist there already, move it, and delete the articles here. A list might be acceptable, with a link to the Gundam wiki. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Gundam wikia is an even bigger trainwreck than you people think the Gundam articles on here are, since it's just a mass transfer of months old information. It would be far easier to clean up everything on Wikipedia (if you all would stop deleting it first) than it would be to clean up the wikia. Yzak Jule 10:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've heard this argument before - from the simpsons project and from various other projects but the clean-up never happens - what actually happens is that the articles just continue to bloat and others are added. If we want to talk about what's "easier" - deleting the lot and starting from scratch to ensure the intergrity would be the way to go... --Charlesknight 10:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Blaming the Gundam project for these articles and calling for its head is bad form. These articles are a mess, but that is what CLEAN UP tags are for, not AfD. I'm not going to bother to vote, I can see the writing on the wall. Kyaa the Catlord 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the state of the articles with regards to clean up that is in question - it's whether they should be on Wikipedia in the first place. Proto::► 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing the RX-78 Gundam is like removing the Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon. Removing this article is reinforcing a systemic bias. Kyaa the Catlord 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I cannot understand why there is so much so detailed information about these fictional machines but I guess it is useful for someone who obsesses over minute details in anime series. JIP | Talk 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Vote changed to weak keep per User:Kyaa the Catlord's reasoning below. This is only because this is the primary mecha in a Gundam series. This vote should not be used as precedent in any other Gundam-related AfD discussions. JIP | Talk 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment For the same reason that X-Wing, Millenium Falcon, etc have specifications. Apparently the wikiproject is working on adding this into an infobox rather than being in the text. Kyaa the Catlord 11:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The X-Wings and the Millennium Falcon are very major spaceships and plot points in Star Wars. Even non-fans who have only seen the movies once over a decade ago know what they are, if not the specific technical details. On the other hand, non-fans of Gundam have never heard of this RX-78 Gundam thingy or the other thingamajigs mentioned in the template, and even after reading the article, it is hard to see what makes one of these robots more notable than another. Star Wars does include a number of vehicles and characters that are by far not notable enough for Wikipedia - you only have to read one of the "Ultimate Guide" books to see them. But saying "if you delete Golden Era Mecha Mobile Suit EVA XYZ-123(R) Mark II+ prototype (which was only ever seen once in one episode) then you should delete the Enterprise-E too" is simply a knee-jerk response from the Gundam fandom. JIP | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then its a case of clean up, not deletion. The RX-78 Gundam is the primary mecha in the First Gundam series. It is as notable as the examples I've given, without the Gundams, there is no show. Your ignorance of Japanese pop culture != non-notability. This is a case of systemic bias, a focus on English language topics and the subsequent removal of ones from other cultures due to blatant ignorance. Kyaa the Catlord 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that things have gotten so out of hand with these articles that something needs to happen, something drastic. Transwiki it all, then slowly work back in the notable stuff. It will be a hell of a lot easier that way, and nothing will actually be lost. I can see the argument for the RX-78 having an article here, but then a lot of the article's content needs to be cut and trimmed. If we can propose a convincing plan of transwiki / mass-cruft cleanup, then I'm sure we'll be given more time before any final deletion decision. Lets focus on that. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I don't hold enough hope that Wikipedia at large will read the article and judge it on its merits. This AfD is a bunch of "OMG! Another Gundam article! Delete!" without taking the time to read the article, judge it on its merits and hold a discussion. Maybe I'm being bitter, but after seeing the other Gundam-related afd noms pass and delete the titular mecha from their series, its hard to believe anything different will happen here. Kyaa the Catlord 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not being a Gundam fan, I did not know the RX-78 Gundam was the primary mecha of the First Gundam series. Because of this, it deserves its own article, but I am sure there are many articles about far less notable Gundam robots. My comment above does not apply specifically to the RX-78 Gundam. JIP | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The lead of the article states "This is the titular mecha...." The article goes on to describe the design of the mecha, how the mecha has had real world impact, etc. Of all the amazingly craptastic Gundam articles, this is actually one of the better ones. And yes, I know, that's kinda sad. Kyaa the Catlord 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On further research and consideration - I think this article is actually a weak KEEP with amazing amounts of clean-up (it might need to be renamed). However most of the rest need to be binned. Those trying to keep - remember an AFD runs for five days and if you can clean-up this up and provide multiple non-trival sources about it's real world and cultural relevence.... --Charlesknight 12:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added some references for the pop culture section, I'm looking for better ones as well. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The only problem I see with the article is the overly excessive detail in the "In Fiction" section. But the top part of the article is well within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and should be kept. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and removed to overly detailed information (cruft) about each variation of the mobile suit. All of it could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs, but it's going to take someone more knowledgeable about the series then I. --Farix (Talk) 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Unlike a lot of the other mecha articles, this one includes some real-world commentary, and some references, so it's got potential. Coupled with the fact that it's the lead mecha of the series, I think it deserves its own article. (Disclaimer: Per JIP, this comment is solely for this article. I bet that there are many other mecha articles out there which are just begging for merging or deletion.) Quack 688 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Until Farix's removal, this article alone contain info for one main MS of a TV series, one main MS of OVAs series and two main MS of two video games. The content of this article also found in five different languages wiki, with Japaneese and Korean version separate it into two articles. Yet we combine all of them into single article. So it's clearly a notable one. Sure, there are several articles that not worth keeping (like those without real content but spec) which I won't object in delete them. However, this article isn't one of them. L-Zwei 13:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the actual article sources and ignorancy of those who voted delete but obviously ignored the sources given Just because they have never seen it.

  Comment and again, people who obviously have nothing to do decided to choose the path of deleting things that they have no idea in instead of improving the articles about fields they are expert of. This is wikipedia, we should not just go around and point at articles saying it is not worth while in it, instead, we should improve the articles in order to make it worth while. Yes, if somebody created a page of totally self generated original thought, we nominate it for deletion, that is what this process is for. However, nominating a cultural icon of some other country is simply just ignorant and arrogant. Face it, Anime has became a major cultural impact in a lot of countries, Gundam is always on the top of the list within Japan, whether you like it or not. RX-78 carries equal cultural impact if not more than X-Wing of Star Wars, it deserves to have its own page and having a badly written page is never an excuse and reason for deletion. To those who think that the WP:Gundam people are responsible for this, it is not. The project was not even called Gundam a few months ago. I agree that some of those articles in the list of Mecha should not stay, but going through hundreds of articles takes time and WP:Gundam people are not professional wiki editors, We have a life to live. From this every nomination, we can see that how ignorant people come to vote without even trying to understand the articles at all. IslaySolomon up there is an excellent example. The article provide source, another anime showing the Mecha itself in it is enough evident of the impact on cultural impact, not to mention there is a RX-78 4 blade Shaver sold in Japan and Pepsi Caps collection. Stop being ignorant Gundam is not just any robot anime you see everywhere, and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references. I understand these nomintations can never have any consensus because deletionists keep ignoring sources or keep raising the par higher and claim everything shown is not a reference while editors of the article need to waste all their time to defend one article so that they cannot improve other articles before some other deletionist nominate them for deletion. Understand the situation People of the WP:Gundam wasted so much time on these AfD noms and have so little time in improving the actual articles. Stop your nominations, start actually improving articles MythSearcher^talk 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're own obvious bias comes out pretty strong. Let's break your argument apart, starting with the overarching theme: there is no cabal or conspiracy who is trying to delete manga/Gundam related articles! This is about notability, nothing more! That being said: RX-78 carries equal cultural impact if not more than X-Wing of Star Wars, it deserves to have its own page and having a badly written page is never an excuse and reason for deletion- frankly false. Wow. It's big in Japan. Just because it's successful commercially doesn't a notable article make. And your statement is stupid, I'm sorry. Quick google check for RX-78: 719,000 hits. Results for x-wing: 1,530,000.
  

  Next. but going through hundreds of articles takes time and WP:Gundam people are not professional wiki editors, We have a life to live.- true. But if these articles are never going to get fixed from the craptastic situation they are in now, why keep them?
  

  and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references- um... no idea what you were saying, grammar check?
  

  Stop your nominations, start actually improving articles- um... I suggest you follow your own advice. This page still doesn't meet the NOTE requirements, and you're the one foaming at the mouth. I do contribute to other things besides AfDs- we're not deletionist zombies, we just follow the guidelines and add input. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I must remind you to be WP:CIVIL in the discussion. But I want to point out a few flaws in your arguments.

  "Wow. It's big in Japan. Just because it's successful commercially doesn't a notable article make." Actually it does become notable, especially when that success has lasted for decades generating several spin-offs, model kits, and etc. But then to go on and say that it isn't notable because it wasn't that popular in the US or other English language country reeks of systemic bias.

  "And your statement is stupid, I'm sorry. Quick google check for RX-78: 719,000 hits. Results for x-wing: 1,530,000". But the problem with the Google test here is that the mecha in question isn't going to be called the "RX-78", but "Gundam" instead. In this case, the Google test is unlikely to yield results that are anywhere close to being accurate.

  "This page still doesn't meet the NOTE requirements." Other editors have already stated that the subject of the article meets WP:FICT. But you continue to say "not notable enough". So exactly what are the notability criteria that is suppose to be applied to this article? Apparently, you don't think it is WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll note it abysmally fails this: multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. In other words, if there was a book that discussed this gundam solely, not just with other Gundam, that would count. I don't see such an example. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You can go find a book solely on X-Wing, or Luke Skywalker, or Link (The Legend of Zelda) before I need to find something that specific. Wikipedia's policy does not state anything about having a whole book stating about it before it gets notable, BTW, this article was originally a list of mecha, not a specific one, it contains different mecha, variants of a famous one. Yes, we did not bother to separate them into 12 different articles, even though 4 of them are the mecha piloted by main characters in 4 different stories, 2 of them are piloted by major characters in another story, and 1 of them is piloted by the rival of the main character in Mobile Suit Gundam(Char Aznable) in the IF story in a major game. BTW, there are various articles JUST describing these particular mechas in Dengeki Hobby, november. 2006 issue, page 12 is the most recent one I still have around, Hobby Japan, Model kit World have hundreds of articles in them through out this pass 27 years of Gundam history and modeling history. You do not know it exsisted? This is WHY wikipedia is here for, to tell you something exsisted and have cultural significance out of your world. Deletionist assuming bad faith and keep saying things are not notable because they have never heard of it and think that no body heard of it because themselves have not is just so laughable. MythSearcher^talk 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not the criteria for inclusion for fictional elements as outlined by WP:FICT. Instead, you are applying your own standards. Try again. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus... listen, I was giving what we call in the lingo, an example. I didn't say there had to be a book, I'm saying that it must meet multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, if you look at the freakin' guidelines... providing links to vendors and stuff doesn't work, saying that since its been around for years makes it notable doesn't work either. I'm sorry, but you do not seem to understand what I was saying... Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't cited a specific notability guideline so I'll ask the question again. Under which applicable notability guideline says that a fiction element must have "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources" before it is notable enough to have their own articles? WP:FICT clearly doesn't say that. In fact, WP:FICT states that such articles can be created if including them into the main article would cause the main article to become too large. Try again. And again, there are no links to venders on the article, but press accounts about the merchandizing of this Gundam model. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references appear only to include the instruction books, so the article fails the requirement of "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources." This much obsessive detail about technical specifications of fictional armaments is fine for a specific wiki devoted to the fictional universe, but has no place in a real-world encyclopedia. Ditto for every bad guy in every comic book, every Digemon character, every Pokemon character, or even every criminal in every Sherlock Holmes story, unless each such character or device had multiple independent coverage in verifiable, reliable and independent sources. Edison 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Read the article, you skipped through the whole thing and looked at the very end which was called References? There are links up in the article to show that those mecha appeared in other anime and product and is independent and reliable enough for any wiki article. BTW, you are saying the mecha Gundam is not important in the anime Gundam. This is one of the best jokes I have ever heard for a few years. MythSearcher^talk 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tip - tone down the attitude and maybe people will take your points more seriously? Bwithh 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cool thing about this is, it really doesn't matter if the deletionist take my point or not, as long as there are enough people who understand it, the nom will became a stall of no consensus. There is no way I can convince deletionist to take my points seriously, I have learnt that in previous noms, keepers can show every other independent source that even only one is shown, the article deserves a keep. Deletionists will just ignore all of the sources either by saying none of those meet their requirements(even if those meet wiki's requirements) or simply disregard their exsistance and keep saying delete just because the article is poorly written until the very end of the nomination. MythSearcher^talk 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very jaded view of the afd process, and I also strongly urge you to read and consider WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF carefully. Bwithh 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with afd, he's got a realistic view of afd. Deletionists vote for delete, inclusionists vote to keep the status quo, cases are made but ignored because despite policy/guideline to the contrary, afd tends to be treated as a vote. CIVIL and AGF don't say blind yourself from the truth.... Kyaa the Catlord 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys clearly have a lot to learn about AFD. Your stereotypical jaded view is very far from how AFDs generally operate in reality. I bring up WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as Mythsearcher's attitude in this discussion has been unacceptably uncivil and provoking in my opinion. Bwithh 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything seriously uncivil nor anything that doesn't AGF about any of Myth's responses here. I do see a lot of deletionist voters who apparently missed large sections of the article, have posted things which at the time they posted were blatantly incorrect (due to earlier edits on the article), and have been sheepish "IDONTLIKEIT" votes. Seriously, it is hard not to be pessimistic when a large number of the delete votes come from people associated with a wikiproject founded to delete articles. Kyaa the Catlord 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply The RX-78 was featured in the January 2005 issue of Newtype. [1] Real world enough? Independent enough? I don't read Japanese so I can't read the description, but... 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Newtype is a magazine with an anime focus, no? You'd expect this to be mentioned there. A non-trivial feature in a news magazine would show cultural importance, an anime one wouldn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an article on the Human Genome wouldn't be significant just because it was printed in a Genetics Journal? Shrumster 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be significant, but if nobody can read it would be hard to say if it is trivial or not. My read of the table of contents is that it got a mention somewhere. The non-trivial articles would probably be the ones with comments underneath them. This, however, is getting close to, if it isn't already, guesswork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be unusual for a magazine to run an article on a non-notable mecha nearly 30 years after the show was aired, wouldn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but rather less so if the series were still being produced in one form or another, and doubtless repeated into the bargain. I suppose you'll disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newtype is a reliable source for anime; it's one of the most important magazines covering the topic. Being in Japanese does not make it unreliable. (There's an English edition, actually, though I haven't checked whether it has the same articles -- I doubt it, since the releases aren't the same.) A cover feature story in Newtype is to anime what a cover story in Entertainment Weekly is to Hollywood. As for not showing cultural influence, I can only presume you are unaware of the extent to which anime and manga permeate Japanese popular culture. Something on the lines of 80% of published material in Japan is manga, and they're not aimed solely at children. Personally, I despise most of Gundam and its knockoffs, but there's no question that it's been among the most influential anime series ever produced. The article the two of you are discussing makes that clear: It's a retrospective which includes a series of drawings by an apparently-famous artist (whose name, I'm afraid, I can't read; I'm rather weak on the name kanji). There's also a section dealing with Z Gundam, which presumably is (or was when this hit the stands) the current show in the series. And one dealing with the theme song of that show, which seems to have catapulted the group singing it to some degree of stardom. Definite impact -- but then, I'd think the fact that "the series [is] still being produced in one form or another" after 30 years would make that clear. And this particular mecha is more or less the symbol of the metaseries. It's as notable within its series as the Starship Enterprise or the Millennium Falcon are within theirs -- in fact, it's more so (the Enterprise and the Falcon didn't spawn huge arrays of spin-offs). The difference is that many editors are not familiar with Gundam as they are with Star Trek or Star Wars -- cultural bias, essentially. Not, mind you, a bad-faith bias against the article itself, but a lack of perception of just how important in Japanese popular culture this series and this specific mobile suit are. I don't even like most of Gundam, and I naturally lean deletionist, but there's not a question in my mind that the delete !voters in this case are mistaken. Shimeru 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not so much the cultural impact (or lack thereof) that keeps bugging me, it's the obsession about the detailed tech specs. The fact that the RX-78 Gundam is a central item or character in an anime series that enjoys huge popularity in Japan is encyclopedic. A list of episodes it appears in is encyclopedic. A brief description of how a pilot would use it in battle is encyclopedic. But half a page full of numbers about how much the fictional metal armour weighs, how many horsepowers the fictional engine has, how long its fictional fingers are, a list of fictional model ID numbers of the fictional bullets it uses as ammunition is not encyclopedic. Such things are of interest only in a Gundam-specific wiki, where people can look them up from an in-universe POV, not from an out-of-universe POV that we have here in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment If you look at the "improved" article, you'll see the specs have been removed. Even prior to this, fantasy specs are just as valid to those interested in the war-machine as they would be to say, someone looking up the F-15. Do we really need to include the number, type and output of them? No. But I've yet to see a reason why not that doesn't simply boil down to "I don't like it". Its more encyclopedic to include stats for warships, even fictional ones, than it is not. These are weapons and not describing their capabilities in combat makes the articles incomplete. Kyaa the Catlord 16:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The problem is, if a part of the article should be deleted, it does not belong to an AfD, instead, it should be brought upon in the article's talk page or the project talk page(since all of these mecha have these data). Also, I see no reason for not tagging in some of the information since those things never have the notablity to have their own articles, and they surely have some impact related to the series itself(For example, the output power is generally increasing throughout the whole Universal Century timeline). The specs are even written by a third party to begin with (Gundam Century itself was written by fans, published by Midori Kobou instead of Bandai or Sunrise) but just later adopted by official publisher. Meaning it is good encyclopedic sources of impact. Maybe more of these should be added in, but it will lengthen the spec part into what the original specs are and who they got changed thoughout the years, and I cannot add in any OR meaning not much could be written. The specs are there so that people have at least the slightest idea of how these fictional things perform. I personally don't care if these are kept or not because I know more places for these things, but obviously quite a large number of fans enjoyed it being here. These should be discussed in the project page instead. MythSearcher^talk 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article looks much better than it did just a few hours ago. This needs to be done on every one of these articles. --- RockMFR 18:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The RX-78-2 is THE Gundam mecha. It over any other deserves highlighting. I'm sorry, but these various Gundam deletions stink of bias. I can understand going after the minor mecha but Gundam is a major franchise and it's spotlight mecha deserves a page. May I ask what would happen if I nominated one of the Starship Enterprise entries for deletion?--HellCat86 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely an immediate speedy keep. But I wouldn't recomend it to prove a point. However the articles on the various Enterprises are worse sourced then this one. Also many of the deletes before the cleanup are along of either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTKNOWIT arguements, which hopefully the closing admin will discount. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per IslaySolomon, Edison, among others; if these are so culturally important, there should be third-party sources. There aren't. I don't share MER-C's disbelief, after all, Doug Bell (talk · contribs) already had to close the AFD from hell. Incredibly crufty {{inuniverse}} stuff, failing WP:N, WP:V, and a million miles from WP:WAF. Transwiki if so desired, always assuming that the Gundam wiki will take this stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is the defining mecha for more than three different TV series, several more mini-series, movies and books spanning more than 25 years of continuous history. Deleting this would would be akin to deleting an article about Jedi or the Starship Enterprise. As for real-world significance, how about presence the dozens of model kits (of this particular one)? In fact, the gundam modeling community significantly different from the military scale modeling community, especially where I live. And as has been said, the RX-78 and the gundam series as a whole is a Japanese cultural icon. I won't go into details but essentially, the mecha itself and the series changed the direction of Japanese animation significantly. While it can be argued that not all mobile suit models deserve their own page (I agree with this), this one (RX-78) definitely does. Shrumster 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How, specifically, does one prove that a movie or series is a "cultural icon"? How does one establish that Star Trek is a cultural icon? If you say by citing the amount of merchandizing, spin-offs, satirizing, documented influences, longevity, and etc., then Gundam is a shoe in. And since the RX-78 Gundam is a major element of the Gundam series, it actually passes WP:FICT for inclusion. Buy why is substantiate if it is cultural icon necessary for inclusion to begin with? Granted that the article could use more sources, but as it stands at the moment, it is better sourced the most other articles on facial elements and characters. And with the recent cleanup, it's is a lot better off in regards to the "in-universe" perspective then similar articles of franchises that are more familiar to English editors. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose keep for this particular Gundam, as AFAIK it is the original Gundam, and has some notability from that. Most of the rest of that huge list linked are probably delete material (or a major trim down and merge operation), so perhaps a bad choice for precedent. FredOrAlive 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And cleanup. This particular 'Gundam', 'Mech', or 'Armored suit', is the central robot of a number of franchised series. I think that template needs more pruning than my garden, and I think that most of the other suits should be merged and trimmed with extreme editorial prejudice for citation and bare-bones notation, perhaps 'Mechs of Gundam Series(es)'. That said, I think that any number of editors would try to re-write or recreate it if removed, and salting on this topic would be to show significant wiki-bias against anime. I say all this as someone who finds the current american trend to 'lubs dem da animay' nauseating and pathetic, but even I have heard of and recognize the Gundam. ThuranX 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AMX-104_R-Jarja- Even though this appears to be the most notable of all Gundams, I frankly think this should be merged with the whole lot. What's sad is Wikiproject Gundam, instead of trying to clean this articles up, is resorting to personal attacks and accusations of 'western bias'. I'm seriously wondering if there is a way to pull the plug on the who thing. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Lies, lies and damned lies. Have you checked the history of the page under consideration here? It has changed substantially since the article was nominated, by editors who have been posting on WP:GUNDAM even. Muddying the waters with accusations of malpractice is low. Calling for pulling the plug on the whole thing, ie deleting the wikiproject for "crimes" is a threat and prohibitted behavior on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry if you feel 'threatened', but people on WP:GUNDAM have been making their own personal attacks, in addition to outlandish attempts to turn this into a battle over 'western bias' conspiracies. I have noted the changes to the article, but adding willy-nilly references from other encyclopedias does not a notable article make. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The people of WP:GUNDAM? Do you even know what you are talking about? I'm sorry that things are getting heated here, but that does not represent the whole effort. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  One editor seems to act as he's the chief spokesman and defender, which is where that impression comes from. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's pretty clear that you haven't looked at the article or you would have know that what you stated about not cleaning up the article is patently false. You also go and attribute the action of one person onto an entire WikiProject. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or merge every model into a single general article (NOT to include a laundry list of model names). Fictional giant robots that blow things up: notable and with cultural impact. A specific model (no matter how "major") of a fictional giant robot that blows things up: not in the least. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Using that logic, we should delete or merge all of the starships and characters of Star Trek. While some of the mechs are better off merged into lists, blindly merging or deleting these articles are both disruptive and nonproductive. No one has had the time to evaluate these articles since last month's attempt to mass delete a bunch of Gundam articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep While I've nominated Gundam articles for deletion, deleting this page would be like deleting X-Wing among the Star Wars pages. Edward321 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and further cleanup this one article as primary thingie of a notable fictional multiverse, per WP:FICT. Note that I strongly support a merge-with-scythe of all the zillion other fighting-suit articles into one paragraph of the parent Gundam article and one list where each suit gets one line (or in the most-notable cases two lines), not a pageful of minor details that don't help the reader understand what people have found important or interesting, also per WP:FICT. Barno 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is NOT how the nominator dislike the article. RX-78 Gundam got equal screen time than some of the major characters in the show(Hey, BTW, the show is called Gundam) It can well be thought as a character, a major one. Promotional toys, video games that are directly about anime robots and a minor appearance in a cartoon ("cameo" was a term used by whoever wrote that part of the article, not just me) are things which belong in a other appearances in pop culture trivia section, and are not evidence that this robot has influenced other cultural activities in a substantial, meaningful way. Sorry, Bwithh, this is not the case. If an anime robot appeared in another anime, and that anime was made over 20 years later(1979~2003), it is not just a pop culture trivia event. BTW, pop culture is culture, influencing pop culture meaning it got the cultural significance that people can recognise the icon 20 years later. And anime robots appears in so many shows, there are thousands of them, why RX-78 Gundam? why not any other robot in any other show, say convoy, or X-Wing? why this old, plain looking piece? Or, why is this particular robot along with MS-06 Zaku appeared over and over again in so many different stories, including non-Gundam stories? How did it got its own Credit card like Yoda? BTW, seen this helmet before?

and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references- um... no idea what you were saying, grammar check? Deletionist ignoring references exsisted does not mean that the references does not exsist. Somebody in this nom said the whole ref section was just instruction manuals, which is totally false, linking to a page of Amazon is valid that The book in question could be bought in that link, the article sourced from a portion of those books. Deletionist not having read the book is not an excuse of the article is not referenced. The books listed is in fact not all published by official sources, the only dependent reference book is the Gundam Officials and Ms encyclopedia. The others are published by various magazine publishers and reviewers, which are all not paid by the Gundam copyright holder company Bandai, or paid for any information from the company. These are called independent sources. I know some deletionist do not hold credit for fan written articles as sources, but a well established publisher publishing books having editors edit the articles is a good secondary source we can use in wiki. It does not matter if the writer is a fan or not, or the editors are fans or not, the fact is that they are independent workers and some third party company paid the publishing fee wishing to earn some money. MythSearcher^talk 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at the Simpsons example I pointed out to you earlier. I was attempting to show you the difference between trivial references and evidence of actual substantive cultural influence. Also take a look at WP:RS for a guide to reliable sources for Wikipedia. Bwithh 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for that level of cultural influence, The Simpsons has over 300 articles focus on it's episodes, divide into 19 subcategories; and that's just about it's episodes, (yet nobody dare to touch). Are you truely believe it's better than have seperate articles for MS? We actually just ask for handful of notable mech here, not seperate article for each of them. L-Zwei 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• per Secondary source, Secondary sources are often peer reviewed, and produced by institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the author's and publishing house's, or research institute's, reputation. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.. Gundam Sentinel Special Edition, Model Graphix, ISBN 4-499-20530-1 alone serves this purpose. It is by a magazine, originally cooperating with Bandai but was later ditched by them, in Frustration, they created the book themselves, also angered Newtype magazine editor to write an article saying model graphix did a good job in creating the real Gundam. The book's name having Gundam does not mean it is primary, and dependent. Also, wikipedia never have a par so high that only changing the language serve as a cultural influence, changing the whole modeling industry(and economy) itself is significant enough.(Where this is quoted from Sgt. Frog) MythSearcher^talk 10:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S The Luke Skywalker page does not contain the Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? The Featured Article Link (The Legend of Zelda) does not carry Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? Some deletionist even claim that an anime magazine is not a good enough source to judge an anime's notability? Come on, you are saying a a scientific journal is not good enough as a source for science subjects, this is just showing how the deletionist keep raising the par to a point where it is totally unrealistic and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia policy asks for sources of that field of expert, not from any other field and what is listed here are that field of expert in anime. You can never find a geographic magazine with anime related articles, right? Stop being unreasonable, the sources are not only verifiable, they are also perfectly valid according to wikipedia. The name containing Gundam doesn't mean it is dependent, just like a physics book is going to use physics as its name. MythSearcher^talk 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, trying to save an article from deletion by saying "what about this article? Delete this too then!" is not a useful or good plan of trying to keep an article; look through the old noms and you'll see what I mean (it's also called the theres a page for this pokemon, so why not...) Go an nominate the article if you want to delete it, but it has no relevance on this case. P.S. Why the obsession with Star Wars? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why the obsession with Star Wars?" Star Wars is possibly the most similar Western, everybody knows it, example to compare and it came out at about the same time that First Gundam did. Seriously, Gundam is the Japanese Star Wars. (Even if 75% of the spin-off series suck, oh, another thing in common!) Kyaa the Catlord 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time this has nothing to do with 'Western' bias! Jesus! I'm sorry, but you saying that this is all a conspiracy of us Americans to devalue anime is outrageous. Can we stick to the AfD? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I simply answered your question. I made no claim about western bias or anything else. I simply said "Gundam is very much similar to Star Wars in many ways." No allegations of bias or whatever. Sheesh, can I offer you some tea? Kyaa the Catlord 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, I confused your comments with Myth... Eh well, maybe he'll read it an get the message that the western bogeyman isn't out to get Gundam. And thanks but no thanks, I'm not one for tea or coffee, I'll go with water. :) P.S. And I do give you credit for trying to perform triage in order to get the gundam articles in order- this article notwithstanding, all the other guys want to do is argue about 'influence.' There is life after AfD. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue saying those sould be deleted, I simply reply that Cultural Significant does not require the level of the Simpson's article to be notable. If there is influence, obviously the article should not be deleted, it is useful in an AfD nom discussion. Do not tell me that something having sourced cultural influence is not notable. BTW, sourced more info in Japanese stamps and Industry recruiting seminar. MythSearcher^talk 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article – the out of universe references establish its notability. Many of the others on the template need to be merged/deleted, though --Pak21 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) nn[reply]
• Strong Keep. This should really be a total nonissue. -Toptomcat 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and this vote is from the guy who's on the rampage nominating most of these fictional weapons articles for deletion. Seems to have at least some sources and some real-life notability. Not perfect by a long shot, but keep for now, but most of the rest in that template are going to go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Per Yzak Jule and Edward321. I have also nominated Gundam articles for deletion, and I can safely say that this is one of the few important ones. Even I, who has never seen a Gundam episode, recognize the RX-78-2 Gundam.--SeizureDog 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Highly notable -- it's practically a main "character" of its series, and has had a lasting influence on the metaseries. The RX-78-2 is iconic. The article is referenced, has independent sources, and covers out-of-universe topics. Some of the mobile-suit articles probably should be deleted or merged or what have you, but this is not a good test case. It's like deciding some Transformers are non-notable and then nominating Optimus Prime. Shimeru 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Ugh, I really want to angusih anguish my temper now,as this is the craziest AfD I have ever seen. Well, I am starting with the most stupid arguments. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not are or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo? Sigh....T_T As other have said, ignorance doesn't mean it is not notable. Do you know Bandai Museum ? Its exhibit sections consists of two parts, Character World and Gundam Museum. Though closed at August 31, 2006 you can say that Gundam is important one, at least for Bandai, as the third biggest toy company. I do not know for other people, but part of most my time reading encyclopedia, I look for something that I did not know before, and some may interest me , some not, that why I love random article menu. Here, of course I may have something that I do not know, I may share it. I believe that sharing is one of the most important feature in wikipedia, right? It is sharing that makes our wikipedia different from other encyclopedia. I admit that sharing is a double-edged sword. Some may talk about something which other may have no interest of them, some may talk about rubbish idea, and so on. As consequences, there also special interest groups who work and talk about that group, as Gundam Fan. Seeing gundam aired in America, at least there are prospects which make Bandai want to sell them there. Of course there are materials not available to non-japanese speaking "viewer". If they want to know more, I think Wikipedia is one of the good place to start for. They may realizes "oh there are these" and "there are those". That is why I insist to include many things seems not important for ignorant people, also per my global view as inclusionists. Well, Roche limit may not important for common people but for astronomers, it is different. Well, if you think that non-fiction is not that important, don't forget that often we achive something from dreams offered by non-fiction. Alas, in my head actually a crazy idea is spinning, it is idea for splitting the Wikipedia into non-fiction and fiction as different project. It may called Wikipedia and Wikifictionary or Wikidreams or whatever. Too many I have seen non fiction article conflict like this. Sorry, if any of you do not like my long argument. I believe we want best thing with Wikipedia, right? Draconins 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drac, calm down a bit. The crisis is pretty much averted and there's no need to go off on everyone else. Let's stay calm. Kyaa the Catlord 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not American, and I know a bit about the American Civil War. Not nearly as much as Americans do, though, but a bit nonetheless. As for the other things, your point is right. I have no idea who R.H.Anderson is, and of course I know football (soccer) (I'm a European, so it's given), and having seen all Babylon 5 episodes, I know what Spoo is. So it's a moot point for those two. JIP | Talk 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American and the only thing I know about the American Civil War was that it happened. Not a Babylon 5 watcher either, and I have no idea what Spoo is. I'm willing to bet that a great percentage of the population where I live (South East Asia) know a lot less about those subject. Just because we don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't notable. His points are valid. Shrumster 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per above arguments. While many of the Gundam articles are unencyclopedic and complete cruft, this is not one of those. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DarkShikari's per. Dekimasu 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. Articles that need work should be improved, not deleted, and cruft is not a guideline, but an essay. Furthermore, User:Moreschi appears to have nominated nearly every Gundam-related article for deletion, in a rather blatant attempt to remove something he/she dislikes from Wikipedia. Jtrainor 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Deleting this article would set up a snowballing precedent, or indeed, a domino effect, wherein quite literally any fictional piece of technology would be deletable material. As per my understanding, Wikipedia is not under any obligation to be an encyclopedia of nonfiction, provided said nonfiction is stated as such. Additionally, this is one of the most heavy-handed AfDs I've ever seen before. What next, go after the Star Trek articles? MalikCarr 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep. Aside from this being a bad-faith nomination apparently based on personal dislike of the Gundam franchise, it's also quite possibly the biggest joke of an AfD I've ever seen. You could make a case (a weak one, but a case) for deleting some of the less significant Gundam articles, but the RX-78 Gundam itself is not only a culture icon in Japan, it's one of the most iconic fictional machines worldwide. It's central to the genre-definining Mobile Suit Gundam, and piloted by the main character of the entire franchise. If this is removed, we might as well get rid of C-3PO and R2-D2 as well, or at least X-wing. This really ought to be a speedy keep given how obvious the notability is. Redxiv 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for reasons listed. If you have to try and get stuff deleted, it's probably best to choose stuff that's not central to a multi-billion dollar franchise. Calaschysm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, also, for reasons listed. if this is delete, we may as well as delete Star trek stuff, and I will if this managed to get deleted. We already lost Gundam infos on Impulse and etc, and this is where we should draw a line in the sand. George Leung 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i did it. Placed Enterprise in Afd. Ironically, i used this as precedent.

I wouldn't have. This is a classic example of a wp:point vio. Bad George. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You gotta be kidding me - Even if you could sucessfully Afd every other Mobile Suit article on Wikipedia (you couldn't), this article is the one that from sheer notability and impact, should never be deleted. Strong and Speedy Keep SAMAS 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be very foolish to delete an article on a notable piece of a popular franchise.RiseRobotRise 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Bad faith nomination, nominator is out to make a disruptive AFD per WP:POINT. --Epanterias amplexus 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. I'm not a Gundam fan by any stretch of the imagination, but this is an article about an important part of a significant franchise. -- 9muses 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Despite my love for anime, I hate Gundam with a passion. Even with this in mind, this particular Gundam is the Gundam equivalent of Pikachu, and the Gundam series itself is the Pokemon of mecha anime. It's the cornerstone of a popular series, and meets the WP:FICT guideline for inclusion per major characters (and places, concepts, etc.), "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Disregarding that, the real-life appearances in Japan, including being on a stamp, argue for notability in themselves. J0lt C0la 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 06:54, 14 January 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.