Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctic Treaty (Gundam)


 * 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   merge to One Year War. the consensus after  relistings is clear. Will someone who knows the work please carry out the merge, including sufficient material.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Antarctic Treaty (Gundam)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the general notability guideline. Claritas § 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to One Year War —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N also merging non notable things into another article wont really help here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The inclusion of things into an article does not follow the WP:N, as long as it is related and important to the said article. The One Year War Article itself is well sourced and studied. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that with merges like these when the AfD result does end in the merger the article sits there for months with no merge done (Im not calling people lazy some just dont know what to merge), I dont know enough about Gundam to cherrypick what is needed and what isnt, but okay I will opt for a Merge to One Year War. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging is that One Year War isn't notable either. Claritas § 20:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging the two articles together would create 10 references for One Year War, the sources are 2nd party sources in Japanese as it is far more notable over there than it is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, believe me, all the sources in Japanese are terrible. Almost nothing Gundam related is actually notable. Claritas § 21:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, your comments are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, these are actual sources that are secondary, you cannot simply make accusations like that. We are talking about a 50 billion Yen franchise here, not popular in the USA does not mean it is not notable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually like Gundam, but I don't think Wikipedia should cover it in so much depth. The problem is that the Japanese sources tend to be published by the same people who publish Gundam, so they're not secondary. Claritas § 08:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the said sources are not published by the same people who publish Gundam, for example, OUT magazine is independent and published Gundam Century, 宝島社, 双葉社, Model Graphix, PHP, Nekkei, Hobby Japan, etc. are all not Bandai/Sunrise/Sotsu Agency. The most you can say is Ascii Mediaworks and Dengeki Hobby are Companies that have a long term relationship with Bandai and Sunrise and Kodansha publish official manga work and Gundam Officials for Bandai.  Gundam is much more notable than you think, you get shelves of Gundam books that are not primary sources in Japan.  BTW if you claim you actually like Gundam, can you tell me, without looking at the article, when did the said treaty appeared? In real life?(What series/publication?) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  09:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh, about 1982, in the Gundam Century companion book ? Close relationship with the publisher/regurgitation of primary sources is a serious problem with all of those sources you've mentioned. --Claritas § 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it appeared in the original TV Anime. And Gundam Century is NOT a companion book, OUT magazine is actually older than Gundam, and is just a general Anime magazine. You are saying Science journals being too closely related to science researchers so they are primary sources. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If Gundam Century featured an original, creator-approved piece of fiction, then it's a companion book, through direct licensing and artistic ties to the creators/copyright holders. There are numerous cases of licensing deals like this, and they are part of the huge advertising campain for the anime. For example, Ginga Shuppan, publisher of Gundam Century, also published the official design plans for the 1:1 Gundam statue in Japan. Gundam Century is not an independent source, and it is not even used to provide commentary to the article but merely more plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to One Year War. Simply too in-universe without enough real-world coverage to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to One Year War. Agree with stated reasons of Narutolovehinata5. And if not merge, delete it. Mang (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. But would support merge in the interest of reaching a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator fails to explain how multiple references for article do not meet our GNG, he simply asserts it without evidence. While I don't read Japanese, I would expect that someone so confidently nominating a fictionaly element with a foreign-language origin would be able to give a detailed appraisal of the sources, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not providing any rationale to keep. Your comment is liable to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: It appears that this should have been relisted in the 24 December log but wasn't added there, so hasn't appeared in a log since the 24th, relisting here for further discussion.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge per Shooterwalker and Narutolovehinata5. Fails WP:GNG but if there's a suitable merge target, why not...Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (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.