Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep all as per the closes of fuddlemark and Sushigeek to the related discussions. In particular, endorsement by the proposer for deletion of the essay Fancruft is not an adequate reason to give for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I suggest that those who believe that these articles are on minor subjects not worthy of their own articles consult the Deletion policy and consider the recommendations there--to wit, to consider merging them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

===GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, GAT-X105E Strike Noir, GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam, GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam, GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam, ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam, GFAS-X1 Destroy, TS-MA2 Moebius=== More giant robots from the Gundam series, WP:CRUFT. I propose allowing editors till the end of this deletion discussion to transwiki to the Gundam wiki, and then deleting. Brian G. Crawford 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: there are several other debates currently on groups of Gundam robot articles. See Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam.

'''What is the point of deleting all these articles? What would that acheive? Absolutely nothing at all.'''


 *  Delete all, Yikes. Okay, I definitely think all this cruft needs to get removed from Wikipedia, I just want to make sure the editors are given fair warning, and I hope the closing admin will be willing to temporarily undelete these articles in order to assist transwiki'ing. Not that I think Gundam wiki is a project I want to help, it's just clear someone spent a lot of time on these.  Mangojuice 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, let me point out that none of these articles have sources. However, the amount of specific detail on all of these robots makes me think a specific published source exists, which actually is WORSE: this might be massive copyright infringement.  Mangojuice 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, process objection. I've changed my mind.  These articles are not sufficiently similar to warrant bundling them together in this group while others get bundled together in a different group.  I still don't like all this Gundam cruft, but these small-group AfDs are a bad way to decide the question.  Mangojuice 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew somebody would accuse me of bad process, it was just a matter of time. I followed the precedent of the mass deletion of Polynesian mythology articles to avoid the problems that those faced.  Hey, I tried to do this right. Brian G. Crawford
 * Comment Are you kidding? You collect a hefty bundle of related articles, and then divide the entries from said bundle through no resonably discernable criteria into multiple AfD projects. The thing is, the articles you've split up have no reason being split up, and if even one of these AfDs pulls through, we can readily await your attempting to delete still more material (rather, previously kept material...) while citing your one success as precedent. Would anyone realy be surprised?--KefkaTheClown 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: as the person who brought those Polynesian myth articles here, I can tell you that it's a bad move. It was a lot of work, and they all had to later be re-submitted individually. Grutness...wha?  01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I strongly oppose Mr. Crawford's attempt at a one-man purge of everything Gundam. The fact that somebody's created their own Wiki for Gundam doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If anything, that should be taken as more evidence of the notability of Gundam. And let me note, Mangojuice, that you need something more than "there's a lot of detail, I think it might be a copyvio!" before you can make credible accusations. Redxiv 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep At least you should have to wait and see result of other page's nomination. Keep made AfD to several page daily make it very nuisance. And you never put AfD template in any Star Wars's or Star Trek's machine article, yet them and Gundam are all from sci-fi fictions. Not that I want to see them all got delete, but at least there should be standard. Anime is a form of art, just like movie. L-Zwei 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "If X is kept, unrelated Y must be kept, too" argument, being a false dichotomy, is not very convincing to me. The fact-free mindreading of "Nominator is singling out X", even less so. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see any obvious reason why these should be deleted. If I had my way (I'm a deletionist), none of the articles would be around, but as the standards of wikipedia are, they should stay. &mdash; ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's like saying you love my argument, but you can't stand the way I make it. That's very odd. Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per the other debate as well. Worht keeping as good Gundam info. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this stuff's already on the Gundam wiki, there's absolutely no reason to have it here. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mangojuice. RGTraynor 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki articles to wikia:c:Gundam as it appears from comments above that the articles currently at wikia:c:Gundam are not complete (missing pics, etc). I'd also support a Merge to Weapons in Gundam universe if there is a strong interest level in keeping some mention of this in Wikipedia.  A link to wikia:c:Gundam would be wholly appropriate there.  No good, logical reason for keeping separate articles for all these things has been put forth.  For the record, this would be my preferred treatment for Star Wars vehicle, weapon, et al articles; Pokemon; and virtually every other fictional world that spawns this level of minutae.  Just a note... I cut & paste my response from the earlier nom dealing with Gundam. Since it appears there are multiple noms for this material, solution should be globally consistant for all of these articles.--Isotope23 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki even though there are already there. GFDL issues, they were copy/paste moved.  I agree that Brian should probably hold off on more noms though, I don't really want to debate in 50 different places.  Also, what is this "transwiki before it gets deleted or we just delete it" nonsense? If you want them gone so bad why don't you transwiki them? Kotepho 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to get snippy. I was just making a proposal, and I didn't expect it to be carried out blindly.  Calm down!  Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it is hard to AGF when you say things like that. Kotepho 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE there is a related mass deletion today. 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT the correct merge target is Cosmic Era Mobile Units 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: AfD is for registered users. Redxiv 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You should read the rules for AfD before antagonizing anonymous users. 132.205.45.148 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is highly unlikely that a vote with no comment from an IP user will be considered. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I was originally borderline about the encyclopedic value of these pages, but Mangojuice has a valid point, these articles are very likely a massive copyvio. --Hetar 20:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and you need more than "I think they're copyvio" to declare them as such. Space Pirate Minagi 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user has fourteen edits, four to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user's edits are almost entirely AfD nominations and PROD tags. He has few actual edits of article content than the user whose position he's trying to undermine. Redxiv 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Check under User:BrianGCrawfordMA, another username I used to use, if you doubt my credentials. I've written articles on real-world subjects, so forgive me if I find giant cartoon robots unencyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do you have TWO Usernames? Isn't that going against policy of Sock puppetry? It's extra amusing to see person who break policy to try delete stuff that going against essay L-Zwei 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having multiple accounts is not against WP:SOCK unless the accounts are being used in an abusive way (for example, if he were to vote with both on the same AfD). The policy is somewhat hard to understand, you might want to look at the proposed revision linked from the talk page, which explains it in a more lucid way without significantly changing the basic idea. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but "donkey punch" and "Dirty Sanchez" don't seem any more notable than giant cartoon robots in my eyes. Redxiv 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you overlooked Dartmouth College and Appalachian English -- though perhaps you were hoping no one would notice. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see those two articles deleted, and I nominated them myself. If you want to personally attack me and question and second-guess everything in my edit history, take it to my talk page.  I'm sorry you don't like it that I'm taking all your favorite cartoon articles to AfD, but that's no reason to be a dick. Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Insult people by called him a dick rather than actual arguments is a worst sign in any discussion.L-Zwei 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This might not actually be an insult. See WP:DICK. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:COOL kids... everyone needs to take a deep breath.--Isotope23 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons listed. No need to remove them from the site that I can see. Calaschysm 23:40, 24 April 2006
 * Keep as perfectly valid articles. WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy, and certainly not a reason for deleting articles. Think of "cruft" as articles on subjects you yourself are not particularly interested in, but other people are. Turnstep 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. Leaning on legalism rather than actual arguments is a bad sign in any discussion. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, we shouldn't rely on the actual policies of Wikipedia, and instead on Mr Crawford's personal opinion of what the policy should be? Redxiv 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is a huge difference between a mere essay, and official Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:V), which is usually given as a rational for deletion. I don't agree that making such an important distinction is "leaning on legalism."Turnstep 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: These are good articles and they shouldn't be deleted compeletly. Besides although Gundam Wikicities is progressing it is not that well developed due to a shortage of contributors. Adv193 00:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let all the editors singing Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song go over there and contribute. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Transwiki. Go to wikicities and have at it. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Wikipedia is, in case you missed it, an encyclopdeia, which is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field". It isn't simply a dictionary wherein one gives quick little definitions and moves on; it's MEANT to go into depth. All these accusations of cruft just seem like a cheap excuse to remove something that the Mr. Crawford here dislikes. If we're using his logic for deletion, then we ought to go and subsidize all movie and video game sequels onto a single page, and smash everything together into homogenous articles, because cruft is cruft, right? --AmuroNT1 02:21 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Don't delete. This is part of Gundam SEED's mobile suits that appeared in the tv show. This needs some editing and proofreading.Ominae 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as previously stated, there is no policy on Wikipedia that forbids fancruft present in articles, it would be best not to insist that such a policy exists while linking to undeniable proof that it isn't... Gather up all the related articles that you want to see taken down, and present them as a whole, rather than dividing them up for no reason. And for goodness sake dude, don't be such a prick about it. --KefkaTheClown 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you only have 3 edits KefkaTheClown I'll assume you don't know better... but read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA... then follow it.--Isotope23 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and duely noted. While attempting to draw attention language I interpreted as being condescending, I ultimately disregarded the criteria of decorum outlined by Wikipedia as well as my own personal standards. For that, I am sorry, but none the less, I stand by my assertion that dividing these articles into multiple AfDs is unessesary, and only serves to hinder the overall process.--KefkaTheClown 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on grounds of irregular process as well as the notability of the content of the articles. See my votes on all of the other Gundam deletions.  Just because the topic of the article might seem silly to you doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. NoIdeaNick 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is fancruft not even about a major character. Wikipedia's Minor Character policy stipulates stuff like this is meant to be collected on one page. A Mech is not a character it is a vehicle used by character in an Anime. Please be objective here and read teh wikipedia policies. Tis essentially fancruft. People here argue that you'd have to delete every single anime character. WRONG. Read the policy. This isn't even a minor character. Make a single page full of triva and silly thumbnails and get over it. --206.191.28.13 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actualy, some of the articles in question pertain to the vehicles of the series' primary protagonists, in particular, the Strike and Aegis are prolific elements of the series in question.--KefkaTheClown 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series (such as the above anon's comments on the Strike and Aegis Gundams. Then nominate all Star Trek USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP THEM these articles are used by people, i use them, they dont have any effect on any of the other articles on Wikipedia. to those who want to put them on Gundam Wiki, its to hard to find that area, not to mention that that area is still incomplete and lacks most of the articles in the main area. Star Wars character articles, under your ideas, should be deleted as well. Not only that but to delete something because you dont like the subject is a taking the article personaly which Wikipedia's rules say not to do.
 * Delete, useless cartoon triva. incog 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP' as explained above Lone Jobber 06:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Spoken like a true intellectual!--71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- If you delete all this, you'll have to delete many (or perhaps even ALL) of the Star Trek and Star Wars articles, claiming they too should just get their own little Wiki like the rest of the, "FanCruft", I believe is the word? Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to be a treasure trove of knowledge on almost ANY subject that anyone can add to and enhance, these Wikis are nothing more than the culmination of hard work from various fans. And finally, just because someone else made their own Wiki doesn't mean that any and all articles on the subject of the Fan-Wiki should be deleted from the real Wikipedia, this is a strawman arguement. If I created a Wiki that chronicled the works of Jules Verne, does that mean you'd delete any and all info Wikipedia has on Mr. Verne's fine works? Did not think so. --71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- To me, the idea of removing these articles seems absurd. Mobile Suit Gundam contains many, vast universes, and needs all of these pages, now, Wikipedia is meant to be the online encyclopedia, in which you can find just about anything, now, if you were to take out one of these things, then it is just one less thing that wiki is good for. Now, as another user mentioned, if this is deleted, then you will also have to delete almost everything from other TV shows. If you are going to delete MS Gundam, while letting so many other shows have their articles remain intact, then I am to assume that you are doing this out of simple hatred of a show that you know almost nothing about. If you are to delete everything, or even, anything, Gundam, then I would also suggest that you delete everything that is Star Trek, Star Wars, related to copyrighted video games, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, Space Runaway Ideon, the Simpsons, Lost, 24, American Idol, and every other show that has ever aired on any TV on earth. Simply put, if having Mobile Suit Gundam on Wikipedia breaks any rules, then so do all of these shows.--AEUG16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But these things need to satisfy WP:V, and don't. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep Fan yes, "cruft" no. all of the information in the articles is a compilation of information that can be found elsewhere. one thing that people have forgotten is that if these articles should be deleted, then all X-Men, Superman and the rest of the American comic book characted should also be deleted. to those that say that the Gundams/Mobile Suits that have been put up for deletion are not major people are basicaly saying that any articles about Klingons, Stromtroopers, and other such things should be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
 * Adding comments that are similar to previous comments as an IP editor will most likely cause you to be suspected as a sock puppet. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Transwiki, per Mango. None of these appear to be verifiable (WP:V), and there are no sources listed. However, the nomination was done poorly. All of these should have been listed on one AfD. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep The source is MAHQ.net for all these "Giant fender colored robots" or whatever bull this guy's spewing. I'm not the creator but I'm positive that that's a source. (unsigned comment by Rappapa 10:25, 28 April 2006
 * Very Strong Keep MarineCorps 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with their drivers. This is all fascinating stuff, but not worthy on its own. Rather than only keeping the more important of this selection I'd sooner see them ALL be moved to "CharacterName#Mechs driven by CharacterName" (or whatever the proper terms are). And yes it was a big lot to do at once, but on the other hand if you've seen one you've basically seen them all. I've done more than that previously... ah, fun times... :) Awesome stuff for a Gundam-specific wiki though. Does one exist we could transwiki these to? Because not everything will be kept even with a merge... GarrettTalk 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the characters have piloted a lot of suits, so their pages would be huge and take up more room than their biographies. Unless there's huge bandwidth problems, it seems like it'd be simpler to leave things as they are, though having these pages seems to really bother people so whatever. Calaschysm 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of machines which were only piloted by minor or nameless characters, such as the standard model GINN. While I think that merging the machines with the appropriate pilot would be a good alternative, there are some that just can't be done with such a play. AmuroNT1 21:14 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem with such a solution is that we would then have multiple instances of repeating data... or rather, multiple identical articles describing a mobile suit on the page of anyone whose piloted one over the course of the series. What happens then when someone decides to edit said article? Correct something, is it then the user's responsibility to make the same change to every single article? Wasteful! If the articles continue to exist, they should remain in a singular form. A better method (if a mandate to do so becomes more convincing that the one presented here...) would be to create large articles labled 'Mobile weapons of the Earth Aliance,' and 'Mobile weapons of the ZAFT forces' that sport the article's contents in a more compact format, organized based on which faction produced the weapon in question...--KefkaTheClown 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you leave proper comments????

-I,am a fan and I just came upon this article by refereal most of these facts can be confirmed if you go to the official gundam web page-http://www.gundamofficial.com/ as for some of the newer ones they can be confirmed at http://www.seed-stargazer.net/ the new O.N.A serias starring some time in june. Uhm....i dont know much about wiki but from what i gathered you can put them all in 1 fan section??? which would make it much easier to navigate and it would save space = )!!!!


 * 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.