Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vessels

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. TomStar81 04:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) For some reason, TomStar81 did not carry out the delete. I reviewed this discussion thread and the relevant articles on 2 Feb in an attempt to close the remaining issues on this VfD day-page. I concur with his count of the votes for deletion. Since the anonymous votes must be steeply discounted, the concensus was a clear delete.

However, during a review of What links here, I find a significant number of articles which do still link to or redirect to this page. That finding contradicts the primary argument in the deletion nomination and the assumptions made by the other voters who endorsed the nomination. I am going to exercise my obligation as an administrator to override the pure vote count and keep the article for now.

If/when someone cleans up all the redirects (and if it has be done in a way which preserves attribution for GFDL) so that this page really is no longer needed, please contact me or ask any administrator to review this page to see if it is then appropriate to carry out the deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On 20 Feb, Redxiv reported that he had completed the clean-up. I have now carried out the deletion as decided by TomStar81. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cosmic Era vessels
This page was created as a result of an effort to combine several stand alone articles. Those articles have been reverted, and this page is no longer needed; Therefore I move to have it deleted unless someone can produce a viable reson for retaining it. TomStar81 08:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --RoySmith 15:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant. Megan1967 01:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - those pages have not been reverted. What links here still lists pages. 132.205.45.110 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true, there are still some pages that link here. Three of those pages are user talk pages, and the other two are redirects.  The redirects should be expanded into their own articles, but I've never seen Gundam Seed or Gundam Seed Destiny; consequently if those pages are not made into their own articles someone will most likely nominate them for speedy deletion. TomStar81


 * I think some just removed all the other merge tos. Though I wonder why, since some of the things that were to be merged were somewhat trivial. I submitted several of them for SPEEDY, but they were rejected as not the right criteria. I suggest that before people delete this, that they go through Category:Gundam Seed and clean it by merging appropriate articles (some Gundam Seed zealots have been removing the merge requests on some of the minor articles) or nominating them for Deletion (there are about 100 articles on this not very noteworthy edition of Gundam).
 * Delete, this article is empty. 68.47.175.214 06:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, not it's not empty. It's just an ugly, bloated mess resulting from merging articles that were perfectly fine on their own into this one. I still say delete this and leave the articles that I'm restoring separate. 68.47.175.214 08:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * NEW CONTENT, I have taken to merging stuff together, since Category:Gundam Seed is so filled with less useful pages, and people just take off the merge tag WITHOUT discussion on the talk pages. 132.205.45.148 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not true, this was discussed on My user talk page, and on Administrater Stan Sheb's talk Page.
 * There are no links to that discussion from the various pages' own talk pages.
 * Admittedly, this was an oversight on my part. I'm still new enough that to the Wikipedia that I tend to forget to place comments, suggestions, demands, etc on the pages in question.  For this I offer no excuse, and take full responsibilty for the mistake. TomStar81 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, merging into a single page does not make sense for multiple articles each of a page or longer. (One could argue whether each of those articles should be a page or longer, but that question should be taken up for each article and agreed upon individually first.) Stan 04:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Only one of the articles is over a page in length, the others are pretty short (Archangel being the exception). They are even shorter once you remove the common introduction, and the non-templatized box listing the various ships (which should be a template), and use a common format for the ship specs (ie, an infobox on the right) 132.205.45.148 19:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Lesseps and Volgulsov are anywhere close to a page in length either 132.205.45.148 22:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this mess. To my mind, totally unnotable.  Smoddy | &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; 19:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If this mess is unnotable, then every page that was merged into it to create it is also unnotable. I would suggest you plug vfds on those pages, as the merge redirects have been reverted. They are listed here: Template:Cosmic Era ship classes. 132.205.45.148 22:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.