Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series


 * 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 no consensus on some and delete the rest. This discussion amounted to over 150K. Much of it (too much) was spent debating the merits of an AfD nominating so many related yet distinct articles in a single nomination. The prospect of 85 59 separate AfDs containing the same arguments from the same set of editors is even more frightening than the debacle that this AfD nearly became. I find no merit in the arguments against the form of this AfD other than the observation that historically these types of nominations become a train wreck with no consensus emerging after day upon day of discussion.

Fortunately, some progress has come from this AfD. Reading through this (yes, every word of it) consensus was clear (yes, clear) on several issues:
 * 1) The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
 * 2) The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
 * 3) All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
 * 4) While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

Now, if this were a vote, then the result would be "no consensus". However, consensus here does not mean consensus that WP:ILIKEIT, but consensus that the material here meets established guidelines and policies that have been developed through consensus. In this regard there were strong arguments in favor of deleting everything, however, I find that there is no consensus whether the following articles meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT, and are thus kept by default:


 * GAT-X105 Strike
 * GAT-X105E Strike Noir
 * GAT-01 Strike Dagger
 * ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam
 * ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom
 * YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam
 * CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
 * TMF/A-802 BuCUE
 * TMF/A-803 LaGOWE
 * ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam

Note that among those arguing to keep the articles, there was consensus to merge the above articles in some form. Deciding how to merge these article is left to the WP:CE project, of which 4 of its 11 members participated, albeit peripherally, in this discussion. There was no consensus to delete yet consensus among those arguing to keep to merge, delete and redirect the following into a single article:


 * MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame
 * MBF-P02 Gundam Astray Red Frame
 * MBF-P03 Gundam Astray Blue Frame
 * MBF-M1 Astray

There was also consensus that all 14 of the above articles need to be significantly edited to address the issues in points #1 and #2 above.

That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above:


 * GAT-01A1 105 Dagger
 * GAT-X102 Duel Gundam
 * GAT-X103 Buster Gundam
 * GAT-02L2 Dagger L
 * GAT-04 Windam
 * GAT-X370 Raider Gundam
 * GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
 * GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam
 * GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam
 * GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam
 * GFAS-X1 Destroy
 * TS-MA4F Exass
 * TS-MB1B Euclid
 * TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande
 * YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah
 * YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe
 * AMA-953 BABI
 * AMF-101 DINN
 * TFA-2 ZuOOT
 * UMF-4A GOOhN
 * UMF-5 ZnO
 * UMF/SSO-3 ASH
 * ZGMF-515 CGUE
 * ZGMF-600 GuAIZ
 * ZGMF-1017 GINN
 * ZAFT Armed Keeper of Unity
 * ZGMF-X11A Regenerate Gundam
 * ZGMF-X12A Testament Gundam
 * ZGMF-X13A Providence Gundam
 * ZGMF-X23S Saviour Gundam
 * ZGMF-X24S Chaos Gundam
 * ZGMF-X31S Abyss Gundam
 * ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam
 * ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam
 * ZGMF-X666S Legend Gundam
 * ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam
 * ZGMF-X2000 GOUF Ignited
 * MVF-M11C Murasame
 * ORB-01 Akatsuki
 * ZGMF-XX09T DOM Trooper
 * MAW-01 Mistral
 * NMS-X07PO Gel Finieto
 * GSF-YAM01 Δ Astray
 * GSX-401FW Stargazer
 * UT-1D Civilian Astray DSSD Custom

The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

You can do the math on the box below to see how long I spent reading, investigating and weighing this decision, so think about it before you come and yell at me. —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
ATTENTION: CLOSING IN PROCESS I am in the process of closing this AfD. I am reading the entire thing (yes, every comment) and evaluating all 85 referenced articles. I expect this will take a couple of hours to do right. —Doug Bell talk 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) To other admins: please talk to me before considering closing this AfD. To people here to comment: you may continue to comment. I will find and read all comments up until when I complete this closing. CLOSING COMPLETED: —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)



I am not only nominating this article, I am nominating every page all 84 pages in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons. They are all listed and lightly mentioned on Cosmic Era Mobile Units, therefore a merge is not required. All of the information has already been transwikied. The information appears to be stolen from MaHQ.net. Deletion is the only option. Before you defend the existence of these articles, please observe how these articles defy WP:NOT, an official policy. There we have two policies that the article clearly violates. If that's not enough, here's a violation of the WP:FICT guidelines: Now, on various articles for deletions, these points have been raised to keep: Thank you. Please, base this on importance, not your liking of the series. Adhere to the rules, not your opinion. TheEmulatorGuy 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
 * There are no sources on most of the articles. Therefore the articles break this rule. Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam, it will violate this.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * The policy states "works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". None of the articles have this.
 * Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." The main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.
 * Seeing as most of the articles contain mostly trivial information, they are minor, and therefore violate the guideline.
 * it would be nice to keep these articles
 * That's not a reason for keeping them.
 * there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first.
 * That's irrelevant. This one has to go, it doesn't matter what order it's done in.
 * they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of.
 * Yes they are, I mentioned the policies they're violating.
 * If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles
 * That seems like a very good idea. Just because that hasn't been done yet doesn't mean this can't be done first. Furthermore, a main character in Star Wars is a lot more important than every single quartenary robot.
 * 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless.
 * There are various rules and policies that state the articles are useless.
 * Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions.
 * Those are primary sources. Articles require secondary sources. If there aren't any, the articles should not exist (in most cases)


 * The previous AfD closed as keep on April 29, 2006.

 COMMENT:  Many people in this discussion are stating that they think some of these articles should go but some should not, or complaining that individual AfDs should be created for each separate article. What they are neglecting to state is which articles they think should go and which should stay and stating their reasons. It is perfectly within process to nominate a group of related articles in a single nomination, and the above referenced template lists the included articles. That means that if your position is that not all of the articles should share the same fate, then this is the time and place to make your case for the fate of individual articles. —Doug Bell talk 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete only CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series until such time that all articles on template are properly AfD'd. wtfunkymonkey 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per very thorough nom. --- RockMFR 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and refer to a relevant WikiProject for how to best merge, transwiki, or otherwise organize this information. Yes, we have a situation where numerous articles of questionable value exist - but trying to deal with that situation with one gigantic AfD almost guarantees throwing some babies out with the bathwater.  Major elements of notable fiction do generally receive articles on Wikipedia, and that is in no way incompatible with Wikipedia policy.  --Hyperbole 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: It has already been merged and transwikied. There are no babies in the bathwater. Using that comment is simply an excuse to keep the articles, and until you actually find a "baby", your claim is incorrect. Look through every article in the template and I guarantee none of them are of importance. These are not major elements of notable fiction, as I have stated, and it does violate policy. Please read my nomination next time. Your keep vote is simply invalid. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take your word for it that a group of 85 articles contain no information that are important to a clearly notable anime. There is probably no group of almost 100 articles I'd vote a blanket "delete" on, especially when a dozen or more of them have already undergone the AfD process - and survived.  It seems disrespectful to all those discussions to try to supercede them by having the entire category deleted.  --Hyperbole 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any robot in Gundam is non-notable. In a very popular series, Metal Gear, the Metal Gears are the star of the show. They are the most important, and each one serves a very important aspect of it. However, they are all in Metal Gear (weapon). This is good example to compare to, because Metal Gear articles are actually representative of a good set of editors, not a group of fans. I realize it seems disrespectful to previous discussions, but I have already argued against all of the points mentioned in those discussions. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is literally no comparison between Metal Gear and Gundam. Gundam is a genre-defining show in literally the same sense that Star Trek defines the "guys in a spaceship fly around solving other people's problems" subgenre of television sci-fi. Iceberg3k 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the comparison. I was trying to say that in Metal Gear, the MOST IMPORTANT antagonist-related thing is in a list, while in Gundam, every single robot and his robot-dog has a full article. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet, you nom ALL of them. L-Zwei 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? That some of them have importance towards the real world? I'd love for you to give me some proof. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Prove had been shown. You just ignore them to the convinience of your own argument.  If someone have published a book to show others how to 3D model these units, if someone have published magazines on how to model real world models on these units, it is enough of a real world impact.  It does not impact you, but the real world of the modeling industry and publishers and 3D modelers.  No one went to improve the articles yet because you have listed too many and coined all of them to be the same.  No, your ignorance is never an argument of you having good enough IQ to disrespect others.  MythSearchertalk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * question Is this a nomination for everything in the tamplate or only CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series? I don't see current AfD templates on the others... BCoates 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am nominating everything in the template. It has to be realized that we cannot keep these articles just because one might be useful. That's simply a terrible excuse. Actually putting the deletion template on all articles would be a ridiculously lengthy task and a waste of time. The steps for AfD mention that to delete a group, a good idea is just to nominate one. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete only CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. Makes no assertion of notability within the context of Gundam; Doesn't even name a specific work they're mentioned in.  Some of these might be worth turning into useful articles but I have no reason to believe this one is.  Keep the rest until they've been given a proper AfD notice that the people who have the page on watchlist will see.  Most people don't read AfD.  BCoates 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Wafulz below. BCoates 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all I'd normally state my reasons here, but the nom summed it all up very nicely.  Ultra-Loser [ T  ] [  C  ]  01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all I agree, delete. Fledgeling 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all and nominate individually or at least in smaller groups. These kind of blanket nominations are bound to end up deleting many worthwhile articles, resulting in another WP:DRV fiasco like Esoteric Programming Languages. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I realize your concern, but you have to realize that there are no worthwhile articles in the templates. They are all non-notable, and there are similar examples supporting this, far more relevant than the one you mentioned. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Continually asserting that there are no worthwhile articles is not an argument. An argument would list each subject and give an explanation of why that individual subject does not warrant an article. Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all - articles have all been updated to refelct the AfD, articles have been transwikied, nomination does well to counter any arguments. I will say, however, that I am disappointed in User:TheEmulatorGuy's conduct throughout a majority of this discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's a very extreme thing to ask. No one has shown notability for any of the pages, and to nominate each one would be utterly ridiculous and time wasting. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment [edit conflict] Wikipedia has procedures put in place for a reason, you cannot expect them to be ignored on the basis of your own personal laziness. You nominated the articles, you must follow proper procedure. Every article is granted the same rights and protection by wikipedia policy, regardless of what the content may be. wtfunkymonkey 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Personal laziness? I would have to edit two hundred similarly-related pages just to nominate them. That doesn't even count the constant replying and defending I have to do with doubtful editors. However, the reason why I am nominating them as one is because they are all cruft - I have looked at all of them, and even if I didn't, fictional objects similar to this don't pass guidelines. The only argument towards keeping it is your laziness - you are the one who guesses there might be important articles in the template instead of looking for yourself. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Longest AfD nom I've ever seen. I have nothing to add but delete. --Natalie 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I have marked each individual article for deletion, so the argument of only one being marked is now officially out the window. In the process, I also got to look at them all, and I've surmised that all of them are basically an extension/copy/mirror of http://www.mahq.net/, which is not allowed. No sources = unverifiable, and as it stands, the articles are really caving in to undue weight. Take it to some other wiki/website please. --Wafulz 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though I'm not an anime fan, there probably are quite a few people out there that like this show. Atlantis Hawk  03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Are... are you kidding me? Did you even read the nomination text? THIS VIOLATES POLICIES. You're unbelievable. I don't know what else to say. Its the equivalent of saying "well, a lot of people didn't like the guy he killed, so he shouldn't go to jail". --TheEmulatorGuy 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or break into smaller listings. Mass AFD's almost always fail, and you didn't even do it right since only 1 article was actually nominated. If you want to do a mass AFD, at least learn how to do it right. Right now, anyone who visits any of the other articles have no way to vote since they don't know you want to delete them. TJ Spyke 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Did you even see Wafulz’s post? Every article under that template has a deletion tag that redirects them to here. Know whats going on before you accuse someone. Fledgeling 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A clear, very thorough nomination. There is nothing more to say than the points made above. Sr13 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a very entertaining afd. TheEmulatorGuy, you clearly have a strong editorial (not fan-based) opinion on this.  I have a question - you say above the AfD guidelines mention that a whole template can be proposed for deletion by nominating one representative article, yet numerous posters here strongly feel that all of the articles needed to be listed.  What is the actual procedure here?  I know that it has been rendered moot in this case, but there seems to be a policy conflict, no?--Dmz5 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'm unsure. WP:AfD states "To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to "bundle" all of them together into a single nomination". I obviously wasn't going to create multiple AfD pages, so I adhered to this, but putting a notice on every single page seemed a daunting task. I went ahead with one page, and fortunately Wafulz mended my mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30 05:50:07
 * Additional comment i don't BELIEVE somebody took all the time to write and properly format all those articles. Man--Dmz5 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam. What do you actually mean? different series should be separated sources, or everything gundam related is a no?  Does something like the sales of a gunpla count towards a source not dedicated to gundam, or someone writing a book stating the impact of specific gundam series to name anything here counted as dedicated to gundam?  And what about Super Robot series?  Just asking, because this is not clear enough.  I limit the sentence to Gundam Seed and Seed-Destiny anime and official guide books for the moment. P.S. The WP:OR quoted here have been taken to a liberty of extending it to an out-of-reach limitation.  Different authors writing different articles for the same series should not be counted as original research, like different authors writing different physics book should be counted as separated sources, both primary and secondary.  MythSearchertalk 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The anime equivalent of sites like GameSpot and IGN are what would be considered reliable, however, fan-sites like http://www.mahq.net are not. I admit I used the wrong words, but the idea is there - they need reliable sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per very good nomination. Mass AfDs are not often appropriate, but they are here, as all nominated articles do suffer from the same problems, and individual discussions would be process for process' sake. Just for completeness' sake, although not really a reason to delete, these articles also violate WP:WAF. Sandstein 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about stuff like MS Encyclopedia 2006, author is independent but is published by official publisher? MythSearchertalk 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unencyclopedic fancruft. Ter e nce Ong 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Second time people have tried to delete all this, and just as foolish as the first time.--DNAlpha 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: Incorrect. I provided policies and a guideline the pages violate, as well as arguments to all of the "keep" points raised previously. Completely different to the previous nominations. Because of that, you have no argument for keeping the pages. Another invalid vote. Care to iterate on why they should stay, or are you going to dwell on ill-founded decisions? I should mention that this user's only edits are on the pages I have nominated to delete, spreading 23 edits over almost a year and a half. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: You fail to understand the scope of Gundam. How are Metal Gears anymore notable then Mobile Suits? Both are the stars of their shows. Your policy violations aren't actually as clear as you make them out to be. I could make a more full arguement aganst them if I felt it was needed.--DNAlpha 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect all. Can't delete them if they have been merged to another article. Ben Standeven 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) preceeding edit from IP 70.255.38.147
 * Delete. Per nom, nothing more to be said.  QuiteUnusual 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination is flawed. The assertion is that these articles are unverifiable, and that the only way for readers to check them is to perform the primary research of actually watching the series directly.  However, for an article to be unverifiable it has to be shown both that the article cites no sources and that the nominator looked for sources and didn't find any.  (See Deletion policy.)  The nominator has shown the first, not the second.  Something is unverifiable only if no sources exist, not simply if the article cites no sources.  (The tag for that is unreferenced, not afd1.)  Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not a good nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Could you iterate on that? I clearly pointed out the policy violations and rebutted against any argument made. Judging from that, it's a very good nomination as a few have said. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is horrible. There is no explanation made anywhere why any particular article of the set isn't worthy of an article.  Perhaps they aren't, but in order to perform a blanket nomination, every single article's reason for deletion must be stated!  You cannot simply call them all "non-notable" without an explanation.  I hope the closing admin notices this blatant violation of policy. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles are all pretty much the same. All the complaints in the nomination/comments apply to all of them, in particular that there's no reputable secondary sources that provide the level of detail that would justify so very many articles instead of one or a few covering the whole topic.  Are each of these lines of robots even central to the actual series? There's no hint of this in the articles, I don't even see episode/series/movie titles listed.  It's just a dump of technical minutiae written as if they were real. BCoates 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then wishfully there will be someone with enough knowledge and time to modify them to better articles, one by one. I never have both and I have no interest in working extensively on CE related stuff and thus I only care about this deletion process and how much it really follows WP.  From what I see now, the WP is explaint in a pretty twisted way to justify the deletion of all the articles.  I am more for the idea of deleting most of them, but the arguement is not made in a good way.  It only looks like any wiki deletionist's work instead of someone who cares about making articles better. MythSearchertalk 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all Per Dark Shikari and MythSearcher's detailed response below. Btw: The robots ARE the stars of the show in the myriad Gundam series. They've spawned an industry in Japan making amazingly detailed models and have a huge fanbase of their own. Kyaa the Catlord 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to alternative wiki for safekeeping until the articles can be sifted through properly to see what can be salvageable. Cruft or not, a lot of work seems to have gone into these; the infomation should be kept somewhere. Exception is if it can be proven that they are copyvios, in which case delete.--SeizureDog 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Please read the rest of my nomination. They are already on the Gundam wiki, and all of the information is directly taken from http://www.mahq.net
 * Keep All - (Edit conflict)I think these articles are fairly well written and if i wanted information on this stuff, I would more than likley come to Wikipedia. In that case, for me personally, I believe the article should stay per WP:IAR.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Incorrect. They're terribly written because they all maintain an in-universe style and fail to ever come out of it. The only people wanting to know that "CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion Unit 1 has a height of 16.9 meters and is used by the Earth Alliance" is a Gundam fan. That is not what the encyclopedia is for.
 * Keep all Per Dark Shikari Bigmog 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Bigmog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep all Per all keep noms so far. There's no reason to get heated up over this. Black-Velvet  13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes there is a reason to get heated up over it. It clearly violates policies and guidelines, and nominations keep failing because of the stubbornness of Gundam fansboys and their need for fancruft. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All Who the hell made you boss? Not to mention, the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor. If that is not an indicator of real-life reference and usefulness, I don't know what is. I second everything ever mentioned under the other Keep votes. Zeromig 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — ZeroMig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor" Huh? What kind of work do you do exactly? --SeizureDog 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe ZeroMig works for a comics and anime magazine, I hesitate to say more because of personal details policies. Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Lets keep the tone a bit nicer!  Nothing to get heated up about - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What.the.fuck? My tone was completely fine, it was a simple question asking for clarification to a confusing statement. Now I'm pissed though because it's late and hate it when people pull that "tone" crap on me. As if there are really tones online anyways, it's all how you read it. Gao. --SeizureDog 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its ok! It was not meant as an attack on anybody in particulars behavior. The comment was just meant to remind everbody involved that it is not that big a deal!  Yes, it all how we read it.  The comment was more directed at :Who the hell made you boss?".  I apolagize if you took it offensivley!  Thanks for your work on AFD discussions.  If you have any futher issues with my comment, you are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page.  - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the thorough nomination that little can be added to. OMG. Duja ► 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- _dk 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone explain to me why individual Pokemons are acceptable as articles but these are not. _dk 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Please, that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you believe that there shouldn't be Pokemon articles, make your own AfD. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not even a keep vote. I'm honestly asking a question. _dk 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the information all exists elsewhere, a mass deletion will not destroy anything in any case. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all I may vote merge for some closely-relate article or some minor articles, but all of them into single article? Nah...L-Zwei 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: For starters, the necessary information has already been merged. Secondly, these are minor articles, as they are about quarternary objects in a fictional world. Thirdly, the information has been stolen. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all as above. This nom is nonsense. Trollderella 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: The nomination is not nonsense, your decisions are nonsense. I provide violations of policies, you scrap up incorrect arguments. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the excellent and thorough nomination, which points out numerous policies that these articles violate. A vote to keep is a vote to reject WP:NOR and WP:NOT: good luck with that.
 * Keep or Move to alternative Wiki per SeizureDog. However, this nomination is in bad form, and as much as I don't like the "tone" thing much, TheEmulatorGuy is actually being a dick, which is bad for someone so keen about policies. Oh, and if we are looking into the backgrounds, all the deleters have created their accounts about a month ago top, and all around the same dates. From what I see here, this is a "Keepers vs Deletionists" thing. I personally hate to throw good material to the garbage, and I feel like there should be a procedure of creating alternative wikis for cases like this. Additionally, it seems like a good part of this articles coul be made encyclopedic easily by adding a few lines of "the introduction of these suits had this and that impact on the series, as - commented in an interview." I never watched Gundam, and I'm no fan of the genre, but I know a major anime series when I see one, and coverage should abund if someone takes the pain to look into it.--SidiLemine 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is already in an alternative wiki. Please read the nomination. Don't bring the decision onto my actions, make the decision based on the CLEAR POLICIES IT VIOLATES. It's not good material, it's stolen in-universe material about fancruft. It's already in an alternative wiki, as I said, PLEASE READ THE NOMINATION NEXT TIME. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionnal comment: Haeleth, when you say "Given that the information all exists elsewhere", o you mean that there is a source to it, and as such it's not OR?--SidiLemine 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: There's a thing called a "reliable source" and an "unreliable sources". These pages are stolen information from an unreliable sources.
 * Keep all as per Dark Shikari. Kagurae 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to alternative wiki as per SeizureDog. Kerochan no Miko 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: It's already in an alternative wiki. Read the nomination. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nomination. Montco 18:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: why delete all infomation we ave articles on us pop culture scifi we have pages on doctor who a uk scifi series just because this is a nich thing we should remove it from the wikipedia unless we are removing all article on fiction. also mahq has made it known that they give permission to repclate here info if you source them.128.118.124.3 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - There is but one catch to this deletion process: People voting here do not know what they are voting for. There is no direct link to all the pages that are nominated.  Yes, there is a function called What links here however, it is almost certained that most people would not know its exsistence and still vote on the subject.  And thus making the nomination not reputable just because there is no way to tell if people even know what there are voting about other than a bunch of supposedly OR pages.  If users who voted above saw this comment, please edit your vote to reflect you have at least looked through all the pages and know what they are about, to show that the vote is reputable.  The list contain 2 pages.
 * Secondly - The WP:OR does not extend to fictional characters that appears in an anime(Seed and probably Seed-Destiny), in manga(Seed Astray, Astray-X, Destiny Astray), in settings(Seed MSV, Seed-D MSV), Official guide books(Seed data file characters 1~4, Mechanical file 1~4), and a Gundam Mobile Suit guide book for most Gundam series instead of Seed and Seed-D dedicated(MS encyclopedia 2003 and 2006). Some even appeared in the Super Robot Series(Super Robot Wars) that is not dedicated to Gundam but almost every single major mecha anime.  Yes, it is very likely that these pages will recieve a lot of fancruff and OR in it if left unattented, however, this is not a reason of deleting any article just because they may contain OR.
 * More reasoning could counter arguments made by the nominator:


 * 1) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - No, this is not publishing an original thought, the page is not created by the author of said characters(mecha), and there are more than one source backing them up (I know not all the pages include their sources, and I have no will in doing).  No, they do not have to be not dedicated to Gundam, They just have to be not dedicated to the series, i.e. not a comic retelling of the anime, not a novel written by the same author, etc.  If someone published a book talking about these characters, in a different way than the story plot itself, it is justified to be a secondary source.  Which actually means that the articles not just justified the WP:NOT test, but can also be written to justify the style of an out-of-universe view.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Yes, but per WP:FICT, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. 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. and The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters. Here, in the list of AfD, I see quite a lot of important mecha that major characters used.  Therefore, at least some of the articles here should not be deleted under this rule.  In fact, a citation needed is what you need in these articles.
 * And yes, I agreed with the fact that There is no reason for keeping them, most of them, at least. However, some of them should be kept, but the nominator indiscriminately list everything here, and thus it is too generic to vote for a yes.
 * And another yes, it does not matter which one goes first, but it should always be done in the correct way, with correctly informed voters, with correctly listed reasons.
 * Also, per Deletion policy/Minor characters, Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. This is not an official policy, but a consensus.  If they appeared in Super Robot Wars and SD Gundam G Generation, than it cannot be tied to a particular work (It is not Mobile Suit Gundam Seed's Cosmic Era anymore) and thus deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances.  The fun thing is, there are a few listed mechas actually showed up in series that are not related to gundam at all, like freedom in Magical Nurse Komugi and Comic Party and various units appeared more than once in the magazines Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby as iconic model kits.  If the nominator is going to do anything similar (I mean this kind of mass deletion) to the UC timeline of Gundam, be informed here that most units in that timeline is also showed in Keroro Kunsou, Genshiken, Plamo tsuguru(TV show teaching how to build plastic models).
 * I am all into deleting most of the pages listed, however, due to above reasons, this nomination did not completely followed the rules and is just too generic and took too much liberty in explaining the wiki policy, I am going to vote a:
 * Keep per above reasons. However, after the voting period, if the articles are to be kept, I will be bold and merge(redirect) the ones I see that are not suitable to have its own page when I have time. MythSearchertalk 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) *Reply: This is quite bluntly incorrect. If you actually read the nomination, you'd realize I linked to a template AND list of all of the articles. You seem to misunderstand the policies as a whole, and seem to be judging it from the one-liners I wrote instead of the whole policy. I'm not enjoying the lack of literacy and comprehension in this nomination. There are about two people making a FALSE decision, and then we have a bunch of sheep saying "keep per above", even though the argument is wrong. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not separate my section as a whole, also, different opinion does not mean it is a FALSE decision. Some see your argument is lacking its credibility and thus voted against it.  Even someone like me who is all for deleting most of the articles thinks that what you are saying here is simply your own point of view instead of what is said in the policy. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above statements. Sharkface217 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A toast to a true Wikihero. Mythsearcher, you summed up what I wanted to say without the facts and references to back it up. Thanks a lot. I still maintain the idea of systematically creating alternate wikis for that kind of situations, but for what concerns Wikipedia, I follow you 200%.--SidiLemine 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Do you people even read nominations anymore? Turn off the anime and read. This information is already on an alternate wiki. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I missed that. Mostly while he said that they have been transwiki he didn't say to where.--SeizureDog 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been transwikied to the Gundam wiki http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page (aka. absolute cruft hellhole) --TheEmulatorGuy 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I that case, my vote is now delete all. --SeizureDog 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete in light of transwikied process. Suggest ELs be used to prevent recreation (at least enough to point the reader to that "level" of information). -- Ned Scott 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that some should go, some should merge, etc (some being... most..), but we'll likely need further discussion to help organize the cruft-cutting. One thing is clear, things should not stay as they are. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has this initiative not failed once already?  Too much potentially valuable information for a blanket delete.  You might consider individual nominatinations for a less heated VfD.  FWIW, I am not an anime fan. SuMadre 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: The initiative previously failed because of a lack of information. I have provided everything required, making the decision much more clearer. I am trying to argue against this "potentially valuable" information argument. You're only assuming the information might be valuable because of ignorance, but I have looked through all of the articles, and none of it is valuable. For you to decide whether it is valuable or not, you will have to look at the articles. Otherwise, voting "keep" is just as foolish. You can't base a vote on ignorance - whether it's "keep" or "delete".
 * Follow-up: To do as you are asking is to delete dozens of articles which probably have not been read individually by us editors.  I will read each one on a case-by-case basis, but I don't have the hours required to sift through each article in a blanket VfD.   Are we to simply take your word that each and every article has no potentially valuable information AND is in violation of WikiPolicy?   To vote based on such would be irresponsible & the height of ignorance.  Once again, and without malice, I suggest that you consider individual noms. SuMadre 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I will be doing individual nominations if this results in a no-consensus. I am determined to get these horrible articles off of Wikipedia. It was clearly a mistake to bundle them, but nominating each one separately is going to be an extreme task. If this results in "keep" (as opposed to "no-consensus"), I'll have to give the administrator a refresher regarding the decisions on AfD. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I think you will have much better luck in that regard (individual noms).  You clearly have a firm resolve to rid the world of these literary abominations, so I see your hard work coming to fruition if you change your tack.  (Please sign your comments with four tildes in the future so I'll know for sure who I'm talking to - Thanks.)  Best of luck.  SuMadre 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry about that. I normally sign, I must've forgotten. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to comment on how irritating I find it that so many of the people who have chimed in to this debate did not bother reading previous postings or even the original nomination. Yes it is long, but how can you expect to participate in a discussion if you are only aware of the previous three things that have been uttered?  Not to select any particular editors for chiding, but I am especially surprised at how many people demanded the articles be transwikied even as TheEmulatorGuy was responding to each such comment individually saying "please read the nomination."--Dmz5 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:CE.--Ojaulent 12:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — Ojaulent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That there exists a project is not a reason to keep them. Do they follow policies, especially WP:V? That is the main question, and one I haven't seen any of the keepers address yet (although I may have missed someone in this lengthy AfD). Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fram is right on this one. The fact that there is a project devoted to a subject does not mean we should start writing articles on everything that falls under that subject. We have a Wikiproject on libraries and librarians. Does it follow that we should then write and keep an article on every library and librarian in the known universe? Please, for the love of all things good in this world, recognize that the answer to this quesiton is no. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. the Delete admin stated the following (roughly): The only ones who wants to know said gundam is X meters high is a gundam fan! THIS is an ultimatly wrong statement, and if this was to be the rule, than wikipedia all encylopedias worldwide would be EXTREMELY narrow. To say that unless proven to be useful to everyone, it should not be part of an encyclopedia. Encylopedias, and wikipedia for that matter, does not contain info that is useful to everyone, however, shouldn`t the fact that it is useful to SOMEONE be a decisive factor?
 * No, the nominator (not a "delete admin", just a regular editor: anyone can nominate articles for deletion) gave numerous reasons for deletion, one of them being that these articles violate one of our core policies, WP:V. Since these articles seem to be not only not verified but actually unverifiable (from secondary sources), they are a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and should be deleted. It doesn't matter if anyone likes or dislikes the subjects (we have many articles on subjects I utterly dislike), we should only look if these articles are conform to the policies of Wikipedia. They are not, and thus should be deleted. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per good nom (although he should have given them all an AfD notice from the start, but that has been fixed) and per mt reply to the previous unsigned post. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No matter your qualms with the procedural value of this nomination, there have been no arguments made that successfully defend against the charges leveled by the nominator. The current poll of votes shows 16-19 "keep" votes, but digging beyond the numbers game reveals a clearer picture of what's going on here. Eight keep votes reflect reservations about the way the articles were nominated, and say nothing about the content of the articles. Four "keep" votes are simple WP:ILIKEIT statements. Another "keep" vote is a regurgitation of the "worse articles exist, therefore this should be kept" fallacy. That means that 68.42 percent of the keep voters are ignoring the actual policy arguments, and chasing their tails in some rhetorical netherworld instead. It is my sincerest hope that the closing administrator realizes this. How on Earth is information like the following a worthy inclusion to the encyclopedia?


 * "Their main feature, however, is the "Armure Lumiere" mono-phase lightwave shield system. This system consists of 7 emitters, one on each arm and 5 on the backpack." CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
 * "In addition, an amphibious variant of the Forbidden was created, the GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue. It utilizes a Natural-use OS rather than OS intended for Biological CPUs, and has weapons optimized for underwater use, including torpedo pods and a photon laser energy cannon in close combat mode." GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
 * "The Chaos is initially tested at Armory One by former Proto-Chaos pilot Courtney Hieronimus. However, before ZAFT can bring it into active service, Sting Oakley of the Earth Alliance's 81st Independent Mobile Battalion steals the mobile suit and escapes with it to the battleship Girty Lue, where it is given the new model number RGX-01." ZGMF-X24S_Chaos_Gundam
 * "For example, the Kimera piloted by Kisato Yamabuki is equipped with a large scoop-style shovel, while that of Lowe Guele mounts mobile suit-style arms, one with a conventional hand and the other with a heavy drill bit. Kimeras could also be fitted with caterpillar tracks for construction work on Earth." MAW-01 Mistral

Please, by all means, explain to me how that information is notable? Our guiding policy here should be WP:FICT, which gives us this gem of useful information: "'Wikipedia 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. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article.'" These articles are written entirely in an "in-universe" style of prose, thus invalidating our first premise. They are unsourced, invalidating our second premise. They make no reference to their cultural value outside of the series, thus invalidating our third premise. In the end, they are a summary of Gundam-specific treknobabble, regurgitating plot specifics. What have we learned, then? Not only do they fail to meet any of the positive criteria set forth, they specifically violate the only negative criteria. Seriously. What's going on in here?

It has already been argued that the Gundam Wing series is a cultural staple and thus important to the encyclopedia as an article reflecting the significance of anime culture. Fine. That's why we've got an article called Mobile Suit Gundam. It covers the psychological and historical value of the franchise without vomiting up huge amounts of made-up statistics and histories for its myriad of plot-specific devices and characters. So stop saying we need an article about a futuristic backhoe to explain how the world is a better place because of the Gundam anime.

This debate needs to focus less on how much of a dick the nominator is (whether he is or not), and get to the crux of the issue: do these articles meet current Wikipedia policy for inclusion? I don't care how tight you twist your knickers up and wish it to be so, they simply do not. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well said, and I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was forced to be a "dick" because of the general stubbornness of people voting to keep. I have seen one person give any sort of source to any of the articles, but the mentions are in a trivial matter and don't warrant an article for each robot. In any case, the matter has become out of hand, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll nominate some of the individual articles when this discussion is closed (if need be). --TheEmulatorGuy 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we're just saying that if you were a dick or not doesn't matter. User:Consequentially is supporting your position. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Personally, I don't think you're being a dick, you're just frustrated with the inane and misguided rationales for keeping these articles. Those kind of opinions aren't really relevant here, I think. We're here to talk about the article, not the people. If this debate is closed with anything other than "delete," then I suggest you go to the articles one by one and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, after all. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Screw that. If the discussion is closed with "keep," which it should be given the nature of the AfD, the opener should leave well enough alone. Going back against the consensus that evolves is the very definition of bad faith. If the nominator has NO intention of abiding by the result of the AfD if it goes against his desired result, he should NEVER have made the nomination in the first place. Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it results in keep, it will only be because of the blanket nomination. Because of that, nominating individual articles would not be bad faith and it would not be going against consensus. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if you're truly concern about quality of article, not just having bad faith. You would wait for some period to see if we manage to improve these articles after this AfD nom or not. L-Zwei 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles has existed for a year, they've had a WikiProject dedicated them, and they've been nominated for AfD over three times, and yet there's been absolutely NO improvement. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for nothing to happen. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Irony, you appear to have self-confidence at moment. I'm not part of WP:CE (and in fact, hate it for narrow scope that limited to CE instead of whole fanchise) but the project seem to inactive. Many idea for improvement pop-up in this nom discussion, don't get overconfidence, but I think this AfD just drive people to improve their content, something previous AfDs fail (due to moronic element of previous AfDs). So I think it may worth to wait (AfD a soon-to-be-merge artcle is pointless anyway). L-Zwei 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This depends on who know their exsistence and who voted. There are unfortunately too many Cosmic Era fans who just walk by and do random edits.  There is no method in stopping these.  I can foresee these pages be recreated again and again after every deletion if there are no redirects that led them to a list(At least that's what happen to a lot of similar page in the Chinese and Japanese wiki).  Actually, this is already a sign of what level of impact those things are influencing our real world. MythSearchertalk 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are recreated after deletion, the proper response is to delete them again, and salt the earth from whence they rose. The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory. The standards in WP:FICT go beyond "real world impact," also, a fact which continues to be ignored in this debate. Despite the "hundreds of editors" who've worked on these articles, not a one of them has bothered to put any non-fictional context into the article. You tell me how big its fake guns are, how fast its fake engines can go, and how long its fake legs are, but there is absolutely nothing about the artist who designed these units, or how they play into general themes of the anime, or how they've influenced the realm of anime-robot-drawing. The reason for this is simple in some cases -- the subject of the article 'just hasn't done any of those things. Consequentially 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is you POV, not wiki's. People say this people say that.  Your argument based on a lot of elements that could be called original research, without a source, and violate the NPOV rule.  Where on earth does wiki policy states that wiki should be only hard science, math theory? (though I really like those, too)  I agree they should have some level of real-world context, they should have information on who designed them and by the influence of what (of course, sourced information).  Again, I must tell you that these articles just did not have anyone with the knowledge and sources to edit them, you cannot just coin that to they can never be improved.  And face it, popular culture is a real world impact, and I have already included sources that show how some of these articles can be improved to show real world impact.  MythSearchertalk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first half of your response, my friend, is a straw man, and I'd appreciate if you represented my positions accurately. I never argued that Wikipedia should include works only on math and hard science. I'll repeat myself.

"The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory."
 * Show me where I argued the point you refuted. Now, after you realize that you can't, lets move on. Wikipedia policy does not require "some level of real world context;" it requires the entire article be written in an out-of-universe context. This is from WP:WAF.

"Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."
 * For further explanation, lets look at what they suggest for information that meets an out-of-universe perspective.


 * the author or creator;
 * the design;
 * the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
 * real-world factors that have influenced the work;
 * for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
 * its popularity among the general public;
 * its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
 * its reception by critics;
 * a critical analysis of the subject;
 * the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
 * a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
 * Your sources do not address these concerns, nor do the articles that are currently being nominated for deletion. They are written entirely from plot summary and technical detail. Even if you want to argue that the treatments are "summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition," you have no basis to claim it is "treated briefly, and clearly defined as fiction." Consequentially 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have introduced this new term to me is ironically true that it can be used on yourself. You have strayed the discussion on saying how people critized wiki, without source, and expect me to say nothing about it?  Back to the discussion.  Face it, what I have listed are enough to write a good article on how some of these fictional characters made a real world impact, they have at least impacted someone to write a book on how to 3D model them, they have impacted people on writing published articles on teaching how to model using them as a reference.  Even published POV critics can be included in wiki's article, therefore, a third party company publishing magazines and books referencing these fictional units, not talking about the plot, but just using them as a good tutoring material that a lot of people are familiar with, is a good source of indicating real world impact.  If only I can scan a fan poll listed in magazine on which of these are more popular, there will be even more real world  context, I do not have the magaizne, and I have no interest in finding one, therefore I never said anything about using it as a source.  However, for a show having that kind of popularity in Japan, compared to any other anime, they always put up polls just to do a marketing research on which unit they can make a model kit and gain profit on.
 * No. A straw man fallacy is when you take someone's argument, and reconstruct it in a weaker, more-easily disposed form. I said, historically, there has been a bias towards popular culture instead of hard-science, and that caused criticism. The bias existed because people wrote about their interests, and not necessarily on what people deem academically "important" for an encyclopedia. That there are a lot of people interested in a topic does not make it important. Somehow, you transformed that into me saying, "we should only have articles on hard science and math," which is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong. Stop it. Even if you're only misusing the term straw man and instead arguing that I'm shifting the debate, it's still a non-responsive argument. I'm probing deeper into why these articles violate WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and you're regurgitating the same word-vomit that you have been all thread: "it's notable and important because people make models of them." What you have yet to address is the fact that, despite the hundreds of edits and dozens of eyes that have passed over these articles, no one has taken the time to meet the criteria for writing on fiction. No matter what might be, we're here to deal with what is. And unless you can prove to me that each of these cartoon fabrications has single-handedly reshaped the way people think about drawing 3D stuff, you can't slap a blanket on them and say, "They all belong."
 * Hell, the fact that they wrote a guide on how to model a Gundam isn't a very strong argument in the first place, because not a single friggin' article talks about how these robots significantly affected the world of 3D modeling. "So what?" you say, "People wrote about it in a third-party publication, so it's automatically noteable enough to merit an article." That's bunk. If we grant your premise that the Gundamspooge has rocked the world of 3D modeling -- which I assure you, it hasn't -- that's information that needs to go in the article on 3D modeling. Stop dodging the question and answer me: which of the eleven characteristics of out-of-universe writing do these articles demonstrate? Consequentially 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question where on earth do you see a policy saying it has to shake the whole world of 3D modeling before it can be said that it got some impact? Given, if a third party published a book of using it to teach 3D modeling, it means that it got enough credits and popularity that someone actually paid the copyright in order to use the designs for their books.  No, it can never be so shocking that it moves the whole 3D modeling community, and thus it is not suitable to be mentioned in the 3D modeling article.  However, a book written is a verifiable source of its popularity among the general public and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects.  A third party publishing a book about these units is a very good demostration on how these units influenced the work of later creators and their projects.  These articles currently contains none of these is a sign of they needed to be improved, if any of the fans cared to do so.  Not a sign of deleting them.  I have provided the sources, and the argument, and already said that if no one is changing them, I will merge them into a list.  I never said anything about they should be kept as they are, and this is why I said the term you have introduced to me is ironically suitable for yourself, while I never said it is not suitable on what I said earlier about your unsourced argument on how people think wiki is biased towards popular culture. MythSearchertalk 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not notability. From UncleG's essay on notability:

"The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion."
 * I'm not saying that Gundam stuff doesn't have a large target audience, I'm saying that outside of that target audience, the importance of these vehicles drops off significantly. Your sources are written from within the anime community, from sources that center on the Gundam universe. These aren't articles from main-stream press or industry trade journals. Beyond that, the criticism that Wikipedia is biased towards popular culture is hardly unsourced. From Criticism of Wikipedia:

"In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that 'people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.'"
 * While those specific examples aren't valid anymore, the bias still exists, and is a topic of great import to a lot of editors.Consequentially 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I have said, having books published satisfy the idea of It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion., while you keep ignoring. Yes, they are not of a mainstream press, in America, but do I have to tell you that wiki is an international page, and the publishers are at least mainstream in Japan, if not Asia.  The Magazines I have quoted are not Gundam or Anime based.  Half of Hobby Japan talks about real world machine models, like cars, aeroplanes, ships and such.  And your hatred in Anime does not take away the credibility of a magazine focusing on Anime is not a mainstream publisher and is biased on Gundam.  Dengeki Hobby is more figure related than Gundam related.  Yes, in your view anything that you have no interest in is not mainstream, because you simply do not need to pay any attention on it, and thus I have the idea of no matter how many sources I can include, you are just going to be able to say they are not notable, not mainstream.  From the original Arguement of the nominator of having sources not dedicated to Gundam, you have moved the level higher onto an argument of needing to have sources not dedicated to Anime,  and probably you will yet try to raise the bar to any sources dedicated to any sort of fan base, including models, anime, comics, novels, games, and any other thing you cannot name of but have a certain group of fans, and maybe just in case some star war fans are interested in Gundam, too, should not carry enough notablity as they are not mainstream, because you simply hate the fact that they are a source countering your argument. Oh, and I can add it up for you, a newspaper becoming immediately not mainstream if they have said anything about any of these Gundam mechas, why? because they are fan based, they are anime based, and center on the Gundam universe.  Face it: Dengeki Hobby Magazine is a mainstream modeling and figure magazine that is even translated to 2 chinese version(Hong Kong and Taiwan), Hobby Japan only have Gundam as one of its nine sections, with at least 3 sections not related to Anime.  And if you wanted to say that the section itself is not maintream publishers, anyone could have the same argument on anything, because you can even ignore any sources from CNN or BBC if you say that particular news is written by who is biased towards that topic.  And No, wiki never states its sources have to be mainstream, if it got published, by a third party company, it is good enough as a source.  It doen't matter if it is anime oriented or not, it is available on the market, people can read it and learn about what is written in it, it is good enough to be listed as a source stating how anything impacted anyone on writing that article of that particular thing.  As a matter of facts, the Tokien Companion is a perfect source for books of J.R.R. Tokien.  And thus a third party publisher writing anything on a topic should be a perfectly valid source.MythSearchertalk 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, we're continuing our parade of bad arguments, and the next stop on your tour is a ignoratio elenchi. I'll play along and grant that these articles demonstrate a significant interest in the Gundamgoo that we're talking about. I'll do you one better, and say that it shows a notable real-world impact, and is thus meritous of inclusion. I don't agree with either of those statements, but we're pretending here, mmkay? Now, tell me what that has to do with the fact that the articles don't meet any of the burdens presented by WP:FICTION and WP:WAF? I'll give them to you again, since you must've missed them the first time. An article on a fictional topic should cover the following:

"'. . . the author or creator; the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; real-world factors that have influenced the work; for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.'"
 * The thrust of my argument has, since the beginning, been that the articles you defend do not meet the criterion established by Wikipedia consensus in reference to writing about fictional topics. Along the way, I've had to defend against the notion that model kits inherently equal notability, but you'll notice I end each response with a return to the original question. Tell me, dear sir, how these articles meet the expectations placed upon them by the guidelines of our encyclopedia? Consequentially 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I have answered it many times. I never said anything about keeping all of them, and I never said all of them are important, I am just saying the ones that recieve out of universe treatment, like having a model made and appearing in another anime not made by the authors and company of the original anime, and appearing in a published magazine, serveral times, satisfy having influenced the work of later creators and their projects. Since these are not real human acting, the people who design them(including original design and finishing and redesigns) should be listed and replace the point of the actor who portrayed the role.  The real world factors that have influenced the work can be found in an interview(listed in the Official website) of the director and two other interviews of the mechanical designer(listed in Data files) who said the designs are influenced by some of the previous Gundam productions not designed by him.  Reception by critics can be sourced from the model magazines which over and over stated these designs reference too much from the previous Gundam series and some even referenced non-Gundam series.  More could be found in Game Express Magazine published in Hong Kong that Critically analyze by Jeto(similar pronounciation) the series of main mechas(in separate issues) about how the main characters use auto lock on instead of real piloting skills in massive genocide and how the other mechas are being just paper boards without even moving and aiming.(The last one I never state because even though I totally agree with him, I know that that critic does not recieve much credit for his articles of constantly bashing on new series and is being criticised for that)  How some of these articles can meet the expectation of our encyclopedia is simple.  It cannot cover every single point, but at least some of the articles can have enough coverage on how much it was influenced by previous productions and how much influence they have on the real world modeling, 3D modeling, and anime production of later creators.  And sources are posted over and over again.  And no, I keep saying the articles at their current state does not meet any of the guidelines and must be improved, and I am assuming good faith on people who are interested in them with the sources I have provided will do a good enough job.  MythSearchertalk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If any of that information appeared in the articles in question, I'm sure things would've gone  a lot differently than they have so far. But until those statements, sourced and correctly applied, appear in the articles, then they stand to be deleted. Which articles specifically will benefit from those additions? Not trying to attack you, just wanting to know which we'll be deleting. Consequentially 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am constructing a list of what to do down there, I think if it is passed, we we have some sort of consensus dispite this trainwreck. However, I will use the word merge(and redirect) instead of delete.  If they are redirected, it is highly likely that people that can find their information will not create a new page by copyvio from mahq or something like that. MythSearchertalk 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, having real world context is essential, but an article not having them maybe just needed to improve, especially sources indicate they can be. You can always assume bad faith, but the deletion guide suggested a merge for these kind of articles instead of a delete.  I know 1.3 states WP:NOT as a may be needed for deletion, however, again, I must say that this is only a straw man's explanation on the WP:NOT policy.  The WP:NOT have nothing stating about these kind of articles and obviously a lot of list articles here falls into Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article  This is why the nomiation is doomed to fail.  It should not have started anyway.  The nominator should just be bold and started merging them in the beginning(and no, a transwiki is just different from having a list on wiki unless we can redirect people to there without using an external link).  Now it is listed, no one can do so because it is like blanking the pages.  MythSearchertalk 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If no one can show real-world impact for the articles on an AfD, then that is an extremely clear indicator is has no real-world impact. He's not coining the term "never be improved", he's showing it through evidence - evidence being that no one has shown any importance of any of the articles whatsoever. The sources you have given are NOT proof of a real-world impact. I have already explained it, please read it. You're giving me clear proof IQ is not an indicator of common sense, comprehension or intelligence itself - and no, that is not a personal vendetta or attack. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep ignoring the sources, everything that indicate they have an impact is dedicted to Gundam and should not be used, should not be listed and should not carry any notability since they are against your argument. Face it, the series is made by Sunrise, the models are made by Bandai, which are two different companies, that is enough prove of every single model made is an impact on the real world.  The magazines are published by different companies, the books are published by different companies, anime made by other companies with no relationship to Sunrise that may infringe copyright problems are also shown as a proof and your common sense is ignoring anything that is against your argument, you have shown clear prove of ignorancy and yet you try to use personal attacks, POV and bad faith just to try to hook to your own nomination without even trying to link all of these together.  Like I have said, I am not against deleting most of the articles, I am only against deleting them all blindly. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Ignoring this sources? I clearly explained why the sources do not give leniancy to separate articles. This is because the "model kits" for each robot are part of a SERIES of model kits - it's not just this one little robot, it's all of the robots - they're not uniquely important - that is why a keep vote is complete nonsense in reference to those sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep AllBut condense the information... However, I think the whole premise of this motion is outrageous! Many of the points that the main person opposed to these articles (EmulatorGuy) has raised are vague, personal opinions which seem to have been raised on the basis of a personal vendetta. I like the way this material is called "useless" - useless to whom? It seems only to be useless to the people nominating the article and there are evidently plenty of people who find it quite useFUL. If we apply his model to the whole of Wikipedia: there will be no articles remaining for anyone to discuss or do anything with. It is obvious that many people want these articles to remain. This is supposed to be an open, public contributed resource of information, regardless of what spurious guidelines you care to spout out, (which seem more inane to me than most inclusions in these articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs). — 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: You don't seem to understand what I am basing this on. "Useless" is not my opinion, it is a gathered opinion based on the various policies and guidelines these articles violate. I have already given them many times, as have a few other users. Upon your claim of "resource of information, regardless of spurious guidelines", I invite you to give me any policy showing this. I suggest you read WP:NOT, because it is a POLICY showing what Wikipedia is NOT - it just happens to include the Gundam articles that a few people wish to keep for their own personal reasons. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary of votes
Yes, polling is evil, but this afd is getting to the point that we need to see how the issue is split. deleted list to save space and confusion

Please do not misrepresent my vote. I am Keep. Also, the nominator does not count. You seem to have completely mixed up your "votes." &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Here is a listing of "votes" from what I read:
 * Polling is evil. I'm removing my name from the list below. BCoates 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised listing, italics indicate disputed votes, normal are those we both agree on: Delete (15 to 18)
 * RockMFR
 * Ultra-Lose
 * Fledgeling
 * wtfunkymonkey
 * natalie
 * wafulz
 * sr13
 * dmz5
 * sandstein
 * terence ong
 * quiteunusual
 * duja
 * haeleth
 * montco
 * seizuredog
 * sidilemine
 * kerochan no miko
 * Ben Standeven

Keep (15 to 17)
 * Hyperbole
 * Dark Shikari
 * atlantis hawk
 * dnalpha — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * danny lilithborne
 * uncle g
 * kyaa the catlord
 * chrislk02
 * bigmog — Bigmog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * black-velvet
 * zeromig — ZeroMig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * l-zwei
 * trollderella
 * sidilemine
 * kagurae
 * kerochan no miko
 * mythsearcher
 * sharkface217

In addition, a number of non-voters have expressed the opinion that this AfD is against Wikipedia policy. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Indeed, more have voted to keep. However, if consensus is to "keep", Wikipedia does seem to support polling, since nearly all of the "keep" votes are ill-founded and ignore all of the issues brought up. But of course, there'll be a generic "no-consensus" just because there are more fanboys than people with common sense. I've yet to see one valid argument towards keeping the articles. No one has shown that ANY of the articles don't violate policies. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had some human error in my counting, but you made you biased your list in the opposite direction. Ben's redirect should be considered a delete (since you have to delete to redirect) and SidiLemine and Kerochan no Miko only said keep unless it was transwiki-ed. So that's at least 18 to 16 17. wtfunkymonkey's vote probably shouldn't be considered, as it's both a delete and keep statement, so I say the voting stands at 18 to 15 16, delete being the majority. --SeizureDog 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind everybody of an official wikipedia policy, WP:IAR. That is the foudnign of my argument, I feel like these articles at least have some value and should not be deleted, per WP:IAR.  I think that IAR, is for situations like this, when somebody, so badly wants something deleted, that they try to cover all of there bases.  I think that AFD's should be for the people participating to do the resaerch and make a decision, not attempt to innoculate the voters by squasing every keep argument! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That all depends on what you think "improve" means. Because the encyclopedia is intended for normal people, not Gundam fans (no offense), the rule would not apply. Only a fan of the Gundam series would ever find that information helpful. Regardless, that policy itself seems to have problems. It seems to imply that I can upload an image that violates copyright laws just because it would make Wikipedia better. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * - (Stupid locked datebase lost my first post!)This is not something that everybody knows about. If it were an article on Food, it would be something most people know about.  If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could.  This is why I feel that WP:IAR applies here.  IT is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage.  In my opinion.  (I dont even know what it is, I am not an advocate for whatever this is. but reading it, it seemed intersting enough to not be deleted.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's information on quaternary robots of an in-universe fictional Japanese-created television show. Now explain why it should have coverage? I could apply the same defense to my foot. In your own words: This is not something that everybody knows about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. It is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * - At least we agree! It is not a bad faith edit! I am all for that.  The foot analogy was pretty good.  If your foot had a fan club, and there was something unique about your foot.  (perhaps you have 123 toes) or your toes look like a star wars character or something, I would probably support keeping the article.  If there was a TV show about your foot, I would be all for it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because they are part of something popular does not mean they are notable themselves. An even more popular series like Star Wars doesn't have a page on every droid. They are listed here, and what's more ridiculous is THE LIST is being accused of non-notability. Really, if that article is deleted and these aren't, that's hypocrisy at its best. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody in this AfD has yet to prove that every single article linked to is non-notable or otherwise not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Until such proof is given, this entire AfD is meaningless: a blanket nomination is not an excuse to nominate articles for deletion without explaining why they should be deleted. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have stated the policies and their violations, and the only way for that to be proven is for you to actually look at the articles. I should mention that no one has given a reliable source, nor have they disproven the accusations for ANY of the articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of defending every argument here. It just isn't worth it, no one wants to accept it and keeps ignoring logic. From here on I'll just stop and let the nomination get a "no consensus", which was clearly going to happen from the start. It's beyond me why anyone thinks these articles are notable, have reliable sources etc. etc. etc. I shouldn't bother, regardless of any of my arguments, Wikipedia administrators will base it on amount of votes (like they always do) and not the integrity of votes. I give up, you can have your articles if the administrator says so. If the nomination results in delete, that's fine, but it's just not worth pointlessly arguing with ignorance. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is your problem, you are being ignorant with my comment.
 * What is missing here? A list of what articles that are going to be deleted on this page.
 * It is important to tag a AfD on every page you want to include, but it is also important to let people know what is going to be deleted on the nomination page.
 * Yes, linking to the template works, to a certain point. However, it is not effective enough, especially the title of this page is Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
 * Another note: You have totally twisted Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
 * per WP:NOT,
 * Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is  verifiable and is not merely the editor's  opinion.
 * Yes, there are sources, I have cited them in this page, I know they need to be in those pages instead, but I really have no interest in defending Cosmic Era related stuff.
 * Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
 * No, those are not invented by writers of wiki. And in fact, there are magazines published in Japan as secondary sources reporting their exsistence.  Your lack of knowledge on those is not a good excuse to ignore it is there.
 * Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage  projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current Events for examples.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Then per WP:NOT:
 * Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
 * These pages are not FAQs.
 * Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
 * Obviously not related to the discussion here.
 * Plot summaries. Wikipedia 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. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
 * Like I have said above, some of the listed page for deletion actually impacted Other anime and manga by appearing in them, Some of these anime and manga are not produced by Bandai or Sunrise or any branch of them.
 * Stop defining the policies to serve your own purposes, and cursing with ofending language like saying the Gundam wiki is an absolute cruft hellhole is not going to help either. MythSearchertalk 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: You make so many claims to sources, but where are they? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 published by Media Works, not Bandai, and thus it is a secondary source.
 * Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
 * GUNDAM A (ガンダムエース) 2007年 01月号 and previous issues, published by 角川書店, not story based magazine.
 * Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
 * Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
 * More real world impact includes GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT, Magical Nurse Komugi series by Tatsunoko, not Sunrise, series by Leaf, having a Freedom Gundam and Strike Gundam appearing in it.  In the Game Super Robot Wars alpha 3, most of the Mecha piloted by main characters and rolled out as mass production units are present.
 * I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. I do know a lot of them do not deserve their own page.  Like I've said, I would have follow the WP:FICT and delete/redirect most of the pages without going through this AfD process if I'd knew these pages exsisted.  The chinese wiki entries like these are so much simplier, we just merge and redirect everything without even putting up something like this.  If fans can find enough data in the list of mecha, they will not create new page for every single one of them. MythSearchertalk 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the guts of WP:FICT. The fact that some of these things appeared in another anime about big robots does not mean that they significantly impacted said anime. These big robots haven't significantly affected anything. The television show, perhaps, has made a dent in the Great Big Timeline of Stuff, but I'm willing to bet, when it all comes down to the line, no one is going to say, "Thank God for the ZGMF-600 GuAIZ. Were it not for this twenty-meter-tall, eighty-ton mass of metals and guns, my life would be completely void of meaning." WP:FICT makes the argument for real-world reference and analysis because Wikipedia is not a Gundam fan site, and the sum cultural value of the Gundam series is not going to be that Pilot X stole it from Evil Nemesis Q, who was going to use it against Innocent Population T, but instead managed to defeat Otherworldly Monster N, and is the reason for the ring of space debris floating around Planet U. The fact that someone else has devoted time and webspace to listing these facts does not make them worthy of encyclopedic apotheosis. Consequentially 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While certainly nothing in this AfD (which hits a swathe of over 85 articles, which when the related AfD for the non-mecha vehicles of this same series is added, tops 100 articles all told) is of life-shaking importance, there are several articles in here which are at least as notable as, say, X-wing or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Iceberg3k 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read the X-Wing article until now. Having done so, I'd say it's pretty crappy, and a poor example of writing on a fictional topic. Only three or four of the paragraphs relate to real-world content, with the other 4/5 of the page devoted to Star Wars treknobabble. That article needs cleaned up, purged of irrelevant and trivial knowledge, and polished, but I digress. Since I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Gundam stuff, I'll trust you that some of the units mentioned are of value to the series. Could you give some examples of the ones you think should be kept, and provide a rationale for them? I don't mean that as a mean-spirited challenge: I'm not attacking you and demanding you come forth like some kind of deletionist McCarthy. Just help us sort the wheat from the chaff, so we can make something productive out of this. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already conceded that the "grunt" units should be compressed into summary articles by nationality (ZAFT/PLANT, Earth Alliance and Orb are the relevant nationalities). The "star" units - the Gundams (such as the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam) - should absolutely be kept and revised to an out of universe perspective, as they're piloted by major characters, have a lot of screen time (for the five GAT-X series units from the first show, over 10 hours individual screen time each). Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with you there, and I think that's an acceptable compromise between the two extremes being presented in this debate. As I know only vaguely of the Gundam world, I'm not in a position to make those changes, but since you seem to be on the ball there, I think it's a solution that you should pursue aggressively. Consequentially 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that AFD is not a vote, it's a debate please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. It doesn't matter how many people voted and what they voted for--it's the quality of the arguments that matter. May I also remind everyone that adding tally boxes to AFD is listed in the "what not to do section. --Kunzite 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment While MAHQ copyvio issue are solid on several articles, several other aren't. Many article existed long before MAHQ upgrade their profile into Burke's type. These articles only borrow general info like spec, which state at MAHQ that it's free-use. Some articles was translated from Japaneese article. In short, if you made seperate nom on each article, the copyvio issue will be solid. But for all of them? Nah... L-Zwei 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, those spec fall into the category of factual data and thus any use of them will not hinder any copyright problems. It is just like listing out how many times a soccer player had scored in one particular season. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I cannot believe how uncivil the original nominator of this AfD has been on this page. He's also threatened that if this does not pass that he will be giving the "administrator a refresher on AfD". I'm shocked and appalled by his behavior and I certainly hope I'm not the only one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've never seen any Gundam, but I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, of these articles are about things that only appeared briefly in an episode or two. Any character/etc. that does not have at least ~30 minutes worth of focused airtime is too minor to have an article about. Can it be established that any of these weapons have had enough focus within the series that they need to be kept? It just gets worse outside of the nominated articles. I mean, Missile truck? Come on, it doesn't even have a name. --SeizureDog 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I agree that some of these articles deserve AfD-ing, but the majority of them do not. This was a bad nom period. If TheEmulatorGuy wants to have them deleted he should have done so on an individual basis. It is terribly unfair to judge the primary mech which are included in the template on the same level as your mentioned Missile truck. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replay Those this format of nominating work for you? Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles Even grouping them together is a major hassle: doing them one by one would be even worse. Plus, I think it's best to keep them together and not scattered about. --SeizureDog 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Its better, but I wouldn't suggest making mass deletion noms out of principle. For example, the Skygrasper in this new Nom is one of the more featured air/spacecraft of the show and some of the main characters involved in the story fly them. A lot of those articles I agree should go, or at the very least be merged together. I wonder if there was originally a large article that was split.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get people to review them seperately, but I think most of the keepers are just giving a blind support. I'm welling to accept some of the articles being important enough to stay, but people have to point out which they are.--SeizureDog 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now that I've become aware that there is a wikiproject dedicated specifically to these articles, I'm more in favor of informing them of the problems and letting them fix them period. Kyaa the Catlord 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I see in the series, its worst. The mass-production models appear in the series as paper boards and have probably less than 5 actions each. They fly out and get destroyed by the main characters without even having the need of dodging or aiming(aiming is done by an automatic fire control system, much less powerful than the F-22 onboard FCS). The same sequence keep on and on just to show how powerful the main characters are(failure attempt to most people with normal level of judgement, i.e. that are not blind). That is why I am really into merging those into one big list. As per WP:FICT. No voting is needed according the WP:FICT for minor characters to be merged into a list, if there isn't already a AfD tag on the page, I would have done so when I knew pages like this exsisted. I only followed a vandal's path of vandalism and figured these mecha have their own page and someone tagged AfD on it so that nothing can be done to blank them, yet. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm in favor of merging for most of the "grunt" suits, may I suggest merging them by national affiliation? A general "Mecha of Gundam SEED" article that possesses large enough descriptions of each mobile suit to remain useful would actually be well beyond the size of this AfD discussion. Iceberg3k 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, one big list is too long, it should be shortened by nation or series(like the list of RGM-79 GM) if the list became too long. That is what we did on the Characters of Negima page. MythSearchertalk 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONG KEEP per above. - Plau 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep, per above. Mass AfDs are NOT kosher. There may well be articles in the template that should be deleted, they like all other articles should be considered for deletion on a case by case basis, not en masse. The AfD opener's concerns should rationally be addressed by improving, not deleting, the articles. Is there cruft in the Gundam WikiProject? Definitely. Should large groupings of articles be deleted in one fell swoop? Hell no. Iceberg3k 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there are fancruff, and thus they should be improved, not blindly deleted. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there ought to be a WikiPolicy to explicitly ban mass deletions, myself. Each article submitted for deletion deserves a complete, thorough and individual investigation, and mass deletions strike me more and more with each one as a deliberate abuse of the rules. If the deletionists think that's a pain in the ass, that's too damned bad, you can't just say something is useless and needs to be deleted just because you don't like it. A lot of mass AfDs are attempted, most of them fail. For very good reason.Iceberg3k 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment And the bullying of fictional articles continues. To the person who commented most of these probably only get brief screentime- most of the mecha profiled appear in just about every episode. I'm reminded of the example someone cited in the Moebius delete- how come entries for Star Trek ships are kept but not these? Then again, I'm sure someone will shove 'WP:ICANBULLYYOU' in my face...--HellCat86 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

keep allthe article does hve element from mahq with there primission given on the site faq. there info may have been lifted from here. but if we remove this article hat's next are we removeing all cult scifi like doctor who or are we removing anything not north american i say wee keep it and let the fans fix it - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also note that this is the second keep all registered by this IP.
 * Very Strong Keep. It is possible some articles must be joined, some even must be revived either into collections or article (Such as TS-MA2 Mobius article), and some other must be kept. I against mass deletions per nom above. Other had been discussed above. I am using WP:IAR, based on rationale: if you put infos into one page, it would be an "explosion". Gundam articles (included Cosmic Era related articles) has deep background story which is useful. Draconins 14:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, Wikipedia should not be going into anywhere near this much detail about this sort of thing. Recury 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT needs much more significant clarification than it currently possesses. In particular, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information can be abused to provide a blanket rationale for virtually any deletion. Iceberg3k 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per wictionary, Indiscriminate means, "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless ". I do not think these articles are thorughless.  (This is just kind of reinfocring what Iceberk3k said.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there's a disturbing and increasing tendency for people to equate "I am not part of this fandom" with "this subject is not important." Iceberg3k 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was kind of the point in my original argument for keep (its up there somewhere). I think an encylopedia should hold more stuff I dont know about than stuff I do know about already!  Somebody knows alot about this stuff(I sure dont).  However, they want to share the information and I am ok with keeping it.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is, coming in as someone who hasn't seen the show but has read the article Gundam, I have no idea why the information on these pages is important. It strikes me as being as unencylopedic as reporting the exact dimensions of every prop used in star trek, or a data dump of the internal numbers used in a video game ("headcrab has 37 hitpoints, and does 20 hitpoints of damage.  9mm bullet does 40 hitpoints of damage, except on hard difficulty, where it does 20...").  It's not like we're considering deleting all or even most of the articles dedicated to a single franchise; as far as I can tell these don't even touch on the plot, characters, fanbase, criticism, impact on the real world, etc., just the props. BCoates 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles should be merged. That's not the point. The Gundams used by the major characters are important enough to warrant individual articles, because like the X-wing, they are really important, unique props which are used by main characters of the show through a significant part of the story arc, and are practically characters in their own right. Grunt suits, no question, should be merged together by nationality for convenience's sake, there are useless articles in the AfD. But there are also important articles in it, and that's why the overall AfD should fail. Iceberg3k 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we have some examples of articles that deserve to be kept linked here somewhere? BCoates 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, to start with (those being the mobile suits used through the series by the primary protagonist, Kira Yamato). The articles need heavy-duty improvements throughout, but that's why WP:CE exists in the first place. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. Gundam is an important anime and although some informations come from MAHQ, the articles also include more informations and thus can't be seen as simply a copy. Diabound00 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fans had a chance to fix it. They had a whole year in fact, but all of the articles are still highly confusing, in-universe, full of trivia, and have no sources. Nothing is going to change. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not for you to decide. WP:CE exists for a reason. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen the birth of WP:CE, which followed many of the formats found in WP:DIGI. That project never really got off the ground, which is too bad. This AfD might be what is needed to start the project back up again in order to do this large scale cleanup. My point is, WP:CE.. really isn't a project right now. Currently, WP:CE does not exist for a reason, and isn't a functional WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Earth Alliance ZAFT ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal Other It's a rough outline of how each article should be merged, but at least it's a start regarding how to consolidate this mess of articles into a more streamlined construct. WP:CE just might find something to set its sights on after all this time.--Kira Matthews 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete These pages violate WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information, per nom. Darkspots 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge The way I see it, every article in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons can be classified as such:
 * G-Weapons (Duel, Buster, Strike [including Strike Rouge], Blitz, Aegis)
 * "Dagger" units (Strike Dagger, 105 Dagger, Dagger L, Windam, and the more extraneous information in the Duel, Buster, and Blitz articles)
 * Stargazer G-Weapon derivatives (Blu Duel, Verde Buster, and Strike Noir)
 * Mobile Armors (Moebius/Moebius Zero, Exass, Euclid, Pergrande, Zamza-Zah, Gells-Ghe)
 * Second-generation EA Gundams (Calamity, Forbidden, Raider, and derivatives)
 * Miscellaneous (Destroy and Hyperion)
 * GINN, CGUE, and GuAIZ series
 * GINN derivatives (BABI, DINN, ZuOOT, BuCUE, LaGOWE, GOOhN, ZnO, ASH)
 * CGUE and GuAIZ derivatives (DEEP Arms and Experimental Firearms Type)
 * First-generation ZAFT Gundams (Dreadnought, Justice, Freedom, Regenerate, Testament, and Providence)
 * Second-generation ZAFT Gundams (Chaos, Abyss, Gaia, Saviour, Impulse, Destiny, Legend, and related units)
 * ZAKU, GOUF, and DOM series [even though the DOM Trooper technically belongs to Terminal]
 * Astray series suits (Red Frame, Blue Frame, Gold Frame, production-model Astray, and related units)
 * Second-generation ORB Union mobile suits (Murasame and Akatsuki)
 * Terminal-produced Gundams (Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice)
 * Anything and everything that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories (Astray Out Frame, Stargazer, et cetera [can't be bothered to go into specifics])

To all inclusionist (Keepers)
Anyone who actually wanted to keep the pages, at least show some motivation in using the above listed source(by me) in the articles (make a template, it would be much easier) to reduce the number of people coming here saying the articles should be deleted because they are unsourced. 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 and This is Our Gundam, Seed-Destiny version should serve as a secondary and primary source(respectively). I am no fan of the Cosmic Era, only someone who dwelt in the Gundam Community long enough that I know what sources contains information for them so I can win arguments against Cosmic Era fans without any sources backing them up and still try to say bad things about other series. I have no motivation in contributing in Cosmic Era series related pages unless they contain major error like fans saying there are Newtypes in Cosmic Era when I know no sources can back them up. Thus you guys have to do the job yourselves if you are to protect any page you like. I hate people who sit there and say that what services need to be provided but keep sitting there without any actual work. Be warned, if I ever got the motivation to go through those pages, I am going to be bold and redirect most of them to a list instead of adding sources to them. MythSearchertalk 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I've got some work to do. I'll attempt to correct some sources to be more accurate, dig through my pile of magazines and books as well ASAP.--216.186.174.146 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 216.186.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KeepJ&#39;onn J&#39;onzz 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reasoning behind this? This isn't a poll, so if you don't provide a reason, your vote is pointless. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nomination. Honestly speaking, there’s always discussion of how these articles should be improved.  The problem is that no one cares enough to do anything at all, and I don’t believe that’ll change anytime soon.  Even though a large chunk of my edits on Wikipedia involve these very articles, I have no attachment to them.  They’re just too bloated at this point.  And as pointed out earlier, they’ve been transwikied, so I don’t believe we’ll lose any information.  These articles simply don’t belong on Wikipedia.  DarkWarrior 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per suggestion to DarkWarrior. Also, can images trans-wikied, citing the appropriate sources of course? --Blackhawk charlie2003 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to COMMENT regarding fate of individual articles, I hereby list a brief summary of what I think should be kept and what should not. My argument for keeping these are either they have appeared in more than three or more media by at least 2 different companies I have list here:
 * Anime(GS, GSD, GS Stargazer) by Sunrise
 * Novel and Manga(GSA, GSAB, GSDA, GSAR, GSXA, GSDA) by Kadokawa
 * Manga(GS, GSD) by Kodansha
 * Anime(Gundam Evolve) by Bandai
 * Model by Bandai, note: GS and GSD series model kits are dedicated to the series itself and is not notable here, I only refer to the MG series kits and EX model series kits where Bandai made kits not only for Gundam but also Patlabor, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Ace Combat and Yukikaze.
 * Game(Alliance VS ZAFT, Alliance VS ZAFT II, Never-Ending Tomorrow) by Bandai
 * Game(SD Gundam G Generation series, Super Robot Wars series) by Banpresto
 * Anime(Magical Nurse Komugi) by Tatsunoko
 * Book(MS Encyclopedia 2003, 2006) by Media works
 * Book(GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT) by ビーエヌエヌ新社
 * Keeps:
 * CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion: GSXA Kadokawa, Evolve Bandai, Game Bandai, Model Bandai, Book Media works.
 * 5 G(Strike, Duel, Aegis, Buster, Blitz): Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Book Media works, Book ビーエヌエヌ新社.
 * ZGMF-X10A Freedom and ZGMF-X09A Justice: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto, Anime Tatsunoko
 * YMF-X000A Dreadnought: Anime Bandai, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Game Banpresto, Manga Kodogawa, Manga Kondasha, Book Media works.
 * Merges that should not be merged into the big list due to notability in the overall importantness of them in the series and some level of separatedness of them and other Generic Paper board targets:
 * TMF/A-802 BuCUE and TMF/A-803 LaGOWE, Merge these two, due to their design impacting the design of Gaia in GSD anime and also their oddness of the Gundam series of non-humanoid MS appearance: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Manga Kodokawa, Game Banpresto.
 * ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom be merged to Justice and Freedom, they are not very notable other than being the mecha main protongists pilot, esp when they are just kinda like upgrades of those two: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto.
 * Astray Red, blue, gold frame, separated from main list due to all the manga story are based on the Astray series(and thus all of them carry the name Astray in them): Anime Bandai, manga Kodogawa, manga Kondasha, model Bandai, Game Banpresto.
 * Arguable items
 * The GS and GSD both have a team of three piloting three different Gundam units that the main protongist fight against, these units mainly appeared only in the series and games by Bandai, they are not even a main element in the plot(none of them stayed in the series for more than half of the series). They recieve a little more treatment by having models in the GS and GSD series but not much in the Bandai regular series like the MG models. (Almost all important ones have MG models). I do not view them as having any appearance in the model because it is only one of the GS and GSD series models which are named as dedicated to those two series.  Even if they exsist outside the main lists, they should be merged to the three in the team instead of having their own page.
 * MythSearchertalk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are also, IMO, four articles from GSD that should be kept: ZGMF-X56S Impulse, ZGMF-X42S Destiny, ZGMF-X666S Legend and ZAFT Armored Keeper of Unity (though this article namespace ought to be changed to "ZAKU (Gundam Seed)"). These ones are the main character suits from GSD that aren't sequel units to the ones in GS.
 * Iceberg3k 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I knida oppose keeping these, since they don't even have their own model kits out of the series(like MG and MIA). MythSearchertalk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Question I think the articles should be merged, so what should I vote? AzureIcicle 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion not votes. To suggest merging, say Merge followed by where to merge. —Doug Bell talk 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TRAINWRECK. Articles need individual consideration, not mass forced resolutions. The ideal solution is probably a coordinated merge for most of them. --tjstrf talk 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a good example to work from. Those articles are [mostly major] characters in World of Warcraft, not [mostly minor] weapons in Gundam. They're different situations. You haven't explained why these articles need individual consideration - it would help if you gave PROPER real-world impact (not obscure model kits) to ONE of the articles in order to separate them from others. As an administrator has commented at the start of the page, blanket nominations are not improper at all, unless you have GOOD reason - so far you've just stated your opinion with no reasoning. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Emulator, all you have done in this whole discussion is continued reassertion of your initial premise. It's already been firmly established that you believe there is no viable content to be had from these articles, which is debated by other posters (including posters who are not fans of the Gundam Seed universe), so further reiteration of this argument is pretty well pointless. If by this point, where viable post-AfD plans have been mentioned and posted, which satisfy the requirements of policy, you are still sticking to your original premise and demanding that the entire article complex be thrown away, in spite of all apparent evidence that contradicts your original argument (which was based on a pretty twisted interpretation of policy to begin with), you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation from this point on (really, you have contributed nothing meaningful since the initial nomination). The consensus appears to be keep some, merge most, and that is probably what the discussion should be closed on. Iceberg3k 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Ahahahaha, oh dear, ahahaha. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I linked to that debate was for the opening. I don't care what the subject of the AfD was, merely the following lines:


 * "past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'"


 * It doesn't matter what the subject is, you've constructed an AfD that is fundamentally impossible to evaluate because it presently requires every editor read 84 articles in order to give a valid opinion. I'm not reading all those pages, you doubtless didn't read all those pages, there's no way we can expect the rest of the voters to read all those pages either. Because of this, any conclusion made as a result of this AfD will be invalid. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine, have it your way. If you require 7 months to get rid of the articles (that's how long it's going to take) instead of 2 weeks just for "individual merit" reasons, that's fine, I give up. I've claimed to give up many times, but only because the constant ignorance infuriates me to keep coming back. I'll let you ignore the fact ANY separate article for a weapon in Gundam is against policy, because obviously we need fucking "individual merit". Before this bastard of a debate closes, just tell me one thing - A FUCKING VALID ARGUMENT TOWARDS THE POLICIES GUNDAM WEAPON ARTICLES VIOLATE. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Congratulations, you've won. Who knows why you wanted to win. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I hate mass AfD noms, essentially. They generate these utterly massive deletion discussions that ALWAYS close no consensus, which means the nominator just wasted hours of numerous peoples's time. And if it takes 7 months for you to merge these pages, you must type really slowly. Also WP:CIV, swearing doesn't help anything. --tjstrf talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Close Discussion This afd is just a mess, we shouldn't make a decision here one way or the other on this. Next time, I suggest the nominator be more specific rather than trying to delete 84 articles at once. Just H 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be that this needs to be broken into smaller chunks. However, the other side of this issue is that having the same people make the same arguments in 84 different discussions is also not useful.  It would be helpful if the people arguing for a finer-grained deletion discussion could delineate some middle ground between 1 and 84 AfDs so that we can move forward instead of stagnating.  Without wanting to prejudice the discussion, I will say that it seems to me that at minimum there is a consensus here that some of the articles should go, so maybe some consensus can at least be reached on which ones those are.  For at least that reason, I think it is premature at this time to close this discussion. —Doug Bell talk 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I am unable to see them, there's just too much clutter on this page, but you may be right that some consensus has been reached in some areas. With that, I would just say go with it where there seems to by holding a "tentative consensus" there to see if it works and try to winnow down the lesser articles quickly by merge or deletion proposals. Just H 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I could pick 84 Wikipedia articles at random, and some of them would be good-quality, while others would be tripe. I'll bet the situation's the same with these ones. The nest is well and truly stirred, now let's all take a deep breath, and find a place to discuss which articles are good and which ones need work. AfD is NOT the place for that discussion. I did quite like the citing of TRAINWRECK precedent, though. Made it worth the read. Quack 688 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply comment I guess it is because it happened that all the 84 randomly selected articles are not of good quality? lol I must admit the work going into these articles are towards a not very good direction.  Most of them are just going for 1) plot summary of what happened to that unit(or the series of them) and 2) the settings spec of them.  While little can be found on what they have impacted, even with the handful of sources I can just pull up that should be included into the articles long ago. (I have not read any of these articles before, even if I made like a little edit on them, it is most likely that I am tracing a vandal's path of vandalization and only revert those without actually looking at the articles.)  Most of them could be improved, at least the lot of Seed mecha can be said to have impacted the Seed-Destiny mechas and have appearance in Super Robot wars.  However, little was included in these, and I have no interest and time in improving these because I have an even longer list of Universal Century Mechas to work on, before some deletionist list the few hundred mechas AfD, I have to do what I can to either merge them or improve them to a point where it is good enough to meet any policy creep keeping criteria. MythSearchertalk 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and comments from an outsider, without the least interest in the subject, but fascinated by the length of the discussion.
 * The very fact of requiring so much discussion is evidence that the subject is worthy of presentation in WP, There would not be so much heat over a truly non-notable group of characters.
 * And there is so much heat that an outsider must wonder whether ther is some subtext about this particular series. Anime AfDs come up frequently here, and do not get anywhere near this attention. Why this one? DGG 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Not so. The only reason why this has generated so much heat is because of the sheer size - this would set a massive precedent if all of the articles were deleted.  So all of the editors are jumping into this melee, inclusionists and deletionists alike, to put their two cents in.  "Intense discussion =/= worth of inclusion."  GNAA had to go through 18 nominations and dozens of talk page archives, but it was eventually deleted because it did not adhere to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS.  Those two policeis overruled all discussion about the "notability" of the topic. Hbdragon88 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply In this case, the original poster should not have used the afd process in this manner. This is a clear case where these articles need work, in some cases they need to be tagged for cleanup, in others they need merging, in yet a few more they need to be deleted. This is a bad case in which to try a mass proposal. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Kyaa. The only situation in which a mass nom will work is if you run two-three test case pages, then nom the rest and cite the previous debate. Also, the GNAA should never be cited as a precedent for anything, ever. --tjstrf talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been aware that mass noms have not worked since watching Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles go down in flames. Hbdragon88
 * Not that the Warcraft AfD was the first attempt at such a thing, of course. It was just the most memorable one, what with AMiB's flair for drama and that trainwreck line. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only way it would work is probably listing items out like in the other mass AfD for the CE vehicles. Never treat every article listed as generic, because they are not the same, especially to fans, they are never the same and thus treating them the same is only going to make things worst.  I have learnt that lesson long ago. MythSearchertalk 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, User:martin_00792 Important anime, I can argue that most of the articals could infact be CHARACTERS THAT INFLUANCE PLOT, and they are present in more that one medium.

Whee! Section Break!

 * Comment - I'd just like to say that this AfD is a complete catastrophe, and that each article should, really, be AfD'd seperately. If this goes through it will end up in DRV because of the Inclusionists here. As a Deletionist, I'm not really ... happy ... with the way this is laid out, since it's a bit of work to look through all the articles and Gundam makes me see red anyway. That being said, some of these articles are possible copyvios. Some are just summaries. Some could, theoretically, be expanded. Mass AfD's rarely succeed since most people will not axe huge clumps of information without being sure every single one deserves the axe. This one will go down as no consensus, so a good and careful look at most of the articles in this series is needed by those voting to keep on how to expand them, or in a few days I'll go through AfDing the crap ones and voting they get salted. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the sake of all that is non-flamewar-causing, let us do some editing and merging before any new AfDs go out. This AfD is a train wreck because the initial poster was so goddamned determined to get the whole mass AfD deleted without any sort of compromise that he was willing to ignore policy to try to get it done (recall that he threatened to immediately re-nominate the whole thing if the result came up "no consensus" and to "teach the administrators a lesson" if the result came up "keep"); emotions need time to settle before further delete action should be taken, IMO. And I don't think ANYBODY will benefit from a precedent that shows that a huge group of articles can be summarily, collectively deleted by somebody with an obvious axe to grind. Iceberg3k 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, he didn't "threaten" to simply repost the AfD; he said that if it came up no-consensus for being overly broad he'd make individual delete nominations, which is exactly what should be done.  BCoates 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pointing out somebody's bad behavior isn't a "personal attack." Please learn the difference between criticism and fallacy of attack ad hominem. Bad faith has been demonstrated, I don't need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Iceberg3k 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Question do actual merging of the articles go against the Do not blank the page rule on the AfD tag? MythSearchertalk 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all Notable anime. --Oakshade 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Having spent hours going through the debate and looking at the articles, I can only say that the nomination is correct in every respect. Delete  Emeraude 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

VERY STRONG KEEP As one has already stated, Gundam is a very notable anime. Besides, from what I've seen, those who want it deleted...you're not doing so well...only one article is gone...so, I think I've made my point. GrievousAlpha95 4:09 PM, December 4, 2006.

I say KEEP as all these mobile suits have a part in the sotry although some are lightly listed like the hyperion and why dont we seperate some on the same page (except for the Duel gunam with assault shroud our should that be split... anywho we need to keep this even STRIKE FREEDOM is listed for deleton i mean come on im using this page for specs on the gundams--Spartan117009 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shut down this ridiculous monstrosity (keep) for the time being. I'm not a fan of Gundam, however it appears that there are plenty of users who know where to merge and redirect these articles, so I think they should be given the chance to do so. Nominating 84 articles at once is not going to solve any problems these articles may have; merging, redirecting and such will, and will prevent the articles from being recreated with policy-violating content again. If nothing is done to correct the obvious problems that these articles have, then the nominator will certainly have the opportunity to kill them with fire in the future, and I think he'd be more successful with this discussion backing him. Catbag 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG ARGUE AROUND IN CIRCLES -- Hahaha, not really but, really, this is getting pretty far out of hand and I see NO chance of consensus being reached here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds of the previous Warcraft failure, the fact there so many articles points towards relevance, and the age old Pokemon test. BrendantheJedi 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Commemnt But it should also be noted that I think a lot the articles need to put in cleanup and/or merged. Variations of the same damn thing don't deserve two articles. This goes for some Universal Century MS as well.BrendantheJedi 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep everything. Put the major suites in their own articles and put the minor suits into repsective production lists. In this manor you should be able to create something akin to the character templates for Fullmetal Alchemist. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Restate, reword suggestions, hoping for a consensus
More and more people pop in and say keep, I hate to say this, but if we can say we have the least consensus here, it is merge, not keep, most of the articles. If you only want spec data for something, go to [www.mahq.net MAHQ.net], or the trans wiki link posted somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck. Or if we merged the pages, the spec will still be there. Here is what I propose, and is probably closest to people who actively participated in this discussion want. (I do not count the people who just come out and drop down a sentence without actually wanting to contribute and wished a blind keep).

Keeps

 * GAT-X105 Strike, and have GAT-X105E Strike Noir and GAT-01 Strike Dagger merged in to that page.
 * Reasons - Influenced at least 2, if not 3 later design in the sequel of the series, the only Perfect grade model of the series, used as the front page of a 3D modeling teaching book about all Gundam, not Seed only. Said to be one of the more realistic military based design of the mechanical designer Kunio Okawara by Dengeki Hobby.  Been a featured topic of a model convention in Japan by Hobby Japan.
 * Reasons for merge of others - they are of a subdivision of Strike, either mass-production or special unit. They have not recieve any special treatment from the company Bandai, and thus are generic enough to be merged, if not deleted.


 * ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam, and have ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom merged to it. If possible, merge the Justice page and the ZGMF-X1?? series under this page.  more details will be stated in the section Suggested merges below.  For now, I treat those as they could be separated.
 * Reasons - Influenced said merge mecha in the sequel, recieved treatment of having a Master Grade model of its own and the same series only have Strike Gundam having the same treatment. Featured in the Game Super Robot Wars along with a lot of well known mecha in Japan, and have a cameo appearance in the anime Nurse Witch Komugi, produced by Tatsunoko productions, which have no relationship with Bandai and is actually sort of a rivaling company.
 * Reasons for merge of others - Strike Freedom is more of an upgrade of Freedom, although it is going to have its own Master Grade model soon(December, 2006), more have to be shown in a keep since it does not influence anything, yet. I see no reason for keeping it for now, if it can recieve more attention by publishers and the company, it could be split back out at any time.
 * For Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: Not quite usual upgrade. Not even a variant. That why we place F-15 and F-15E, F18 and F18E/F, separately. They are quite distinct, they have quite a story (Though original Freedom has more). Though they take much previous design, it is quite different, except some source say so. I never see any source which say they are upgrades. This may be only speculation, however, Freedom, Justice, Strike Freedom, Infinite Justice, receive different code (X10A,X9A,X20A,X19A respectively). I may agree if asked to merge Infinite Justice, but not the Strike Freedom based on notability. Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keeps

 * YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam and CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
 * Reasons - First appeared in MSV, influenced the author of the manga to include them into the manga(which is not a retell of the anime), no out of the series model kits have been made for it, but it is featured in Gundam Evolve, a series not dedicated to Gundam Seed or related series, the only other appearance of a Seed series mecha is Strike. I would like to say merging them but having only 2 in a list without any relationship in the design plot is kinda wierd.  Hoping for a better suggestion here.


 * TMF/A-802 BuCUE and merge TMF/A-803 LaGOWE to it.
 * Reasons - This one influenced the designer of the sequel Destiny to design ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam and another sequel Stargazer the TMF/A-802W2 Kerberos BuCUE Hound (which is, fortunately, already under this page) One of the rare non-humanoid Mobile Suit of the Gundam series. (Stated by Degeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazine model reviews.)
 * Reasons for merge of others - A comander type of an exsisting mecha is not notable enough for a new article, please, by all means, merge them.
 * Any source that this mecha is only commander type and just mere upgrade? Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merges (special)

 * MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame, MBF-P02 Gundam Astray Red Frame, MBF-P03 Gundam Astray Blue Frame and MBF-M1 Astray into one page.
 * Reasons - They are pretty much the same thing, but the model recieved a bit more attention for the Gold frame is an event limited item in a Japanese model convention not dedicated to Gundam. Also for the new technology in modeling in hiding the cut between the useful pieces and the backbone of the injection moulding piece.  It is not the first to have such treatment, but the second of the Bandai modeling series, after Hyakushiki.  And since the other astray articles should tag along, I'd say merging them to a page for the Astray series is not a bad idea.


 * ZGMF-X23S Saviour, ZGMF-X24S Chaos, ZGMF-X31S Abyss, etc. that starts with ZGMF-X??? that is not 1X are called Second series on the official Japanese page, they generally recieve the same treatment altogether, and should be merged to a page other than the mass-production ZAFT mecha. This includes ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam and ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam due to their not so important figure out of the series.  At least until something special about them is released, I'd say this is good enough.
 * ZGMF-X09A Justice and ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice are not even satisfied as a main plot device to some certain extend. They might be a little more important to the series, but is definitely not having any special impact to the real world.  The latter actually is less popular than a Zaku unit in the series(per the series models having it out so late that it is 11 months later than the last Zaku unit.) (for the 1/144, it is even 1 month later than the Dom units)  For a unit appearing pretty much the same time as the Freedom, its attention is way lower and my view on this is that its popularity is not high enough for the modeling company to release it early.  Therefore, I'd say merge it to Freedom, its partner and let them tag along to increase that article's notability instead of being evaluated to be deleted soon after this.

Other Merges
I would like to say the others should be deleted, but redirects to big lists would greatly reduce the chances of them being recreated by randomly dropped by fans. Since merging everything left into one page is definitely going to exceed 32kb, I propose 2 methods of merging:
 * 1) Merge by fictional nations
 * Advantage: Easy links from the fictional nation page (though I kinda think they should be merged to one page, too) Easier explanation on which is the predecessor of which.
 * Disadvantage: too easy to get the articles into another mess of in-universe article, and is hard to organize the whole thing to let people without any knowledge to comprehand which one is from which story.
 * 1) Merge by series
 * Advantage: Easier to let people know what appeared in which series (All the manga Astray series viewed as a whole) which from my point of view, it is better served as an out-of-universe view of things. (Most people walking by is not going to understand what is ZAFT and Orb and etc.)
 * Disadvantage: Units appearing in more than one series is going to make a big mess.

Last notes
I will not work on the above articles until I have finished a major part of the Universal Century mechas having similar pages like this one. I have provide sources and what I have listed in this page should be enough to improve the articles I have listed as keeps to a point where they meet wiki's policies. If nothing has improved for some while (like more AfD pops up), I will not back up those pages any more. Because it is obvious enough that nobody cared to improve those pages. However, I see that there are people who seems to be willing to do so in the above discussion and I am assuming good faith on this. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm fully supportive of these proposed merges and shuffling. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I support merge No. 2 for out-of-universe reasons.--SidiLemine 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we having consesus?
So.... if we are having consensus which either keep or merge, let's propose ini the WikiProject Gundam. Or may be still a deletionist to argue? Draconins 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep: A lot of stuff is noteable and I would suggest that since a lot of debate is being brought out about all the mobile suits in one of the Gundam Universes then shouldn't this affect the mobile suits from the other Gundam Universes as well. Anyway after taking a look at some articles I can say that some ideas I have to towards trimming an article down is not to go into so much detail over Mobile suit capablities since that had resulted in mutiple paragraphs also the triva section should be trimmed down to remove any speculative, and unneccessary material. -Adv193 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One other comment to post: It would help if for the Gundam articles not to go into extra detail on the Technology used in that Gundam such as Phase Shift Armor, N-Jammer Canceller, and DRAGOON System since there are already sperate articles for them and it wouldn't be ripping off the Gundam website MAHQ.net of their style of explaining this technology in their Mobile suit summary. An example I have is of the Gaia Gundam ZGMF-X88S (RGX-03) Gaia Gundam. -Adv193 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Article merges, trims, redirects, and maybe some individual AfDs seem to be our next step. WikiProject Gundam would be a good place to organize this. I think we can all agree that things shouldn't stay, as they are now, for these articles. What to cut and what to keep is the question now. Personally, I think the whole thing could be cut, especially if it's been transwikied, but that's just me. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've still yet to see an example of content in this category that should exist, although I imagine it would be possible to write different, out-of-universe article(s) on the topic. My first choice position would still be to delete these and start over; but I have no particular objection to a merge so long as it 1) drastically reduces the number of articles (sections can always be split into new articles later) and 2) Gets pushed towards WP:FICT's goal of articles about fiction in the real world, instead of an encylcopedia of fiction as if it were real. BCoates 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.