Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knightmare Frame


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

The result was   keep. No consensus to delete, and a good case was made for the Knightmares being integral to the series, and for this information making the Code Geass article too long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Knightmare Frame

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, WP:WAF. Article is pure plot and unsourced WP:OR. This level of "history" and plot detail is simply unneeded. What a "knightmare" is can be quite nicely summed up in two to three sentences. The rest is all redundant plot repetition. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Though I hate to use an other crap argument, this page is like a like of characters or the exhaustive lists of gundams (three I think, I merely skimmed). It provides a resource that aids in the understanding of the series. It isn't OR, as they are general details. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant fancruft and OR, all entirely non-notable. Doceirias (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is, in fact, the primary reason for articles being deleted. Fanboyish love of indescriminate information collection does not justify keeping articles like this one. Doceirias (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No specific reason as to why this article is non-notable has been provided. The fancruft explanation has been bandied about quite a bit, but that also falls when compared to similar series and their level of detail. Examples are needed to show that this level of information is somehow excessive when compared to other lists of mecha for other anime/manga series.the_one092001 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Bad faith nom per WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Jtrainor (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment from an editor who didn't like me tagging "his article" with issues who went behind a bunch of my edits making the same false accusation. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I've never edited this article before. Jtrainor (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking Mobile Suit Gundam 00, which you keep detagging for no valid reason. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not original research, but derived from the shows' Japanese official website. It's notable as many of the knighmare's are specific to individual characters and important to the way they act. Their capabilities often directly affect the course of the story(ex. some can fly, most can't). Sure, some details could be sifted out, but what will it hurt if the article stays? Collectonian, you created an article detailing the names, relationships and major actions of meerkats that is now a featured list: is this list really that far from your's? Someone put much effort into this, and as someone who has only just begun the series I can say that it really helped me understand it better. There's no other resource I can find like this in english, and I can't read Japanese. please keep.Westrim (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The Meerkat list is sourced not just to the primary source, but to third party sources throughout (including national news papers). It is a single character list as is allowed for a television series, and the topic of those meerkats as a whole meets all of the requirements this page does not. This is "maybe" sourced from the official site (no actual evidence given to support that), and the level of detail is beyond accessive and unnecessary. Mecha in anime is far from a unique concept needing a full article to explain. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not maybe, is, and that's a sourcing issue, not a deletion issue. Just because mecha are not a unique concept does not make all mecha fundamentally the same. That argument has about as many holes as your claim that an anime film which uses the same characters doesn't need an article. This is the same concept as List of Omnitrix aliens: these are part character-specific, part generalized entries, only different from a character list in that they're supplements to the characters. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that was a totally unnecessary side comment (and despite your view, several such films have since been merged because they do fail WP:MOS-AM's requirements for having separate articles). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have said it was sourced from the official page unless there was evidence, which there is: right there at the bottom of the page, in references. Again, I can't understand it when I go to it, but it looks an awful lot like a list of the knightmares to me. For below, both of those series have been around for several times longer than this one has, with greater attention paid to them- it's only natural that they'd have a lot more third party references than Code Geass, especially since it was only released here a couple months ago. I suspect that there are plenty of refences to be found, but since I don't read Japanese I can't find them.Westrim (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only 6 refs in the whole article, with two to official sites. That doesn't give evidence that the entire page is sourced from the official site. If every last thing here came from that site, though, wouldn't that mean it was WP:COPYVIO (note, I have NOT checked the translation, just questioning in general). One source is an image, which fails WP:RS on all counts. Two are episodes. Again, the final and only real question is, does the topic of "Knightmare Frames of Code Gaess" have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. If not, then it is not a notable topic. If this is a list of characters, then they belong in List of Code Geass characters, which already exists.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem with the sources, then a source tag should be applied, not a deletion tag. As other editors have pointed out below, it is possible to summarize everything in this entire encyclopedia in a few sentences. The United States of America could be summarized as "A representative democracy located on the North American continent founded in 1776 when it rebelled against Great Britain. It is currently considered a global superpower and is involved in an occupation of Iraq and several other foreign regions." That gives the general gist of the object in question, but is by no means a complete description. This article has very little to do with the plot of the series aside from the fact that the Frames are used in the series. Other series also contain a list of mecha that are clearly separate. The Gundam list does not include Evangelion units even though they are both "giant robots" and both exist separately detailing their contents. It is true that there is a lack of separate sources, but that warrants a source tag, not a delete tag. As a new series, it is expected that little information would be available, but this was the same with the original release of both Gundam and Evangelion. General standards shown in other more established articles call for a separate list of mecha used if those mecha are central to the plot, as these are. the_one092001 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is no different from the lists for other series such as Gundam Mobile Suits, or Evangelion Angels/Eva Units. Every series that has a significant number of plot-related vehicles has at least a list that provides some information about them. While these vehicles do not warrant individual pages, they are collectively important enough to have a list related to them since they are such an important part of the series. the_one092001 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not being a valid argument, both of those series have enough extensive, third party sources that they are likely to be notable. Other such series, such as Escaflowne, did not and its mecha list was also properly removed. The extensive detail was not necessary at all there, nor is it here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an overuse of shortcuts to policy as stated in WP:BASH. As it states, arguments from analogies are perfectly acceptable. There is also the fact that BOTH are essays, neither are guidelines or policies. I am aware of the result of the Escaflowne debate, but the fact remains that Escaflowne is a done deal. It's finished, so there will likely be no more sources released. However, for a series like Code Geass that is still under production, it is quite likely that more sources will be released that can be used in the future. In its early stages, the List of Cosmic Era mobile units also suffered from a lack of sources, but sources were later published and cited. In this case, the lack of sources warrants verify tags and possibly cleanup tags, not deletion tags. the_one092001 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Collectonian seems to be on a rampage of POINTy noms due to people reverting her tagging on articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, another unsupported, uncalled for false claim. Can you not find an actual valid reason for keeping that you have to do a pointless personal attack with no real reason to do so? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This articles is much too detailed. There is a section about these on the main CG page; merge a short, concise summary of relevant information to that section and redirect. If the CG wikia wants the information, a transwiki before-hand is advised. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the reasons that Collectonian gives are valid.  Non-primary sources have been difficult to find in my searches (clarification: reliable non-primary sources, i.e. not youtube, other wikis, or fan sites).  Tranwiki to a more appropriate place if desired. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article could be improved, this is a legitimate spinout article.  After all, one could briefly describe what a starship was in a few sentences, but it's perfectly acceptable to have more information, such as in List of Starfleet starships ordered by class.  Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep None of collectonian's points are not valid. First: Anything can be summed up in two to three sentences, but that does not mean it does not deserve its own article. Knightmare frames are different from other mechas and deserve to be detailed, in both its history and its different models, much like the Chicago White Sox deserve to be detailed in its history and its players. If there was only a summary in Major League Baseball, that the Chicago White Sox are an American league baseball team that plays in Chicago, then this Encyclopedia would be a laughing stock. There has been numerous precedent in WIkipedia regarding vehicles like the Knightmare Frame for both fictional and non-fictional work that support this, meaning that there is a wide consensus among editors that this is acceptable. Second: All articles regarding fictional work have to have references to the plot of said work to show how it is relevant, so references to the plot is expected. This article is more than a plot summery. It contains information that is not in the plot, and details specifications of specific Knightmare frames and the ways they are related. Third. According to WP:NOT, it states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." Because this anime is relatively new, it does not have as many third party sources detailing it. Some of the information is detailed from specific episodes and some are from imagines of magazines. Each of these is able to be referenced. To be able to add the information needed to support the article, editors use such referancable material because there is a lack of third party sources that fit the letter of the rules. This is in the spirit of the rules. There is numerous precedent of support this throughout hundreds if not thousands of articles in this encyclopedia, which shows a general consensus among editors that when there is a lack of sources that fit exactly the letter of the rules, using other sources that are able to be referenced and are relatively reliable, fits the spirit of the rules. JohnWycliff (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Really I dont see the difference in this article and other articles in discribing a type of weapon or a class of a Starship like in StarWars, it also contains alot of information regarding the subject of Knightmare Frames, which could be useful to some of the readers.--FunkMasterFlex3 (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not feel that the deletion of the article contributes anything to WP as an encyclopedic resource; it is of use to readers who want to know this information. -- Fallacies (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any sort of notability. As it stands, the whole article is an excessive plot summary that fails WP:NOT by being entirely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure people realize that the article is about a  fictional topic. Therefore, all information regarding the topic a) originates from a single primary source and b) relates to a single created universe, much like with most works of fiction. Regarding the opinion that the article is plot summery, the article includes a lot of information that is not part of the plot. As for notability, please direct your attention to Notability (films). Code Geass has won numerous awards including The best TV anime series award from the sixth annual Tokyo Anime Awards held at the 2007 Tokyo International Anime Fair and The Animage Anime Grand Prix, making it very notable. I doubt anyone familiar with the series would disagree with the opinion that Knightmare Frames are a significant important part of the show. As a result, that makes the topic notable as well. JohnWycliff (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware that this is an article about a fictional subject. And yes, I know that Code Geass is notable, but that does not make every aspect of the series notable. Notability of the series does not give you carte blanche to create whatever articles you want concerning the series. All articles within the series have to prove their notability independently, which requires coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. And even past that, this article fails WP:NOT for being completely plot summary - all the details are in-universe, and thus related to the plot. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this article is "completely plot" while this is not. Or this. The centrality of Knightmare Frames within the series means that this article does not violate standards for notability. As for the "plot" summary, plot details are only listed insofar as they describe the use or development of the Frame, such as listing that the Shinkiro's Druid System was salvaged by Rakshata from the wrecked Gawain. For the most part, the article does a good job of describing the Frames in question without getting too heavily into the plot. The parts that have too much plot should be revised, not deleted. Revision is needed in the place of unnecessary plot, not deletion. the_one092001 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth voted to delete that second one, so you can't say he's not trying to voice his opinion. Regardless, you're not about to convince him to change his opinion, and the reverse is likely true as well. Also, since there's a fairly big divide on this position, arguing about it here with the same tired reasoning (back and forth "WP:This and that" throwing) is at best unproductive. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not going to convince him, but I feel obligated to respond as he did to my !vote (although I'm quite aware it's pointless :p). In any case, the article is completely plot because it is completely in-universe. It talks about the subject from an in-universe perspective and all of the information in the article is directly related to the plot - there is no commentary/critical reception/cultural impact of the subject from reliable sources independent of the topic. As such, even if you're not going to go for WP:NOT (which it does fail as it stands), then it asserts zero notability and should be deleted in that regard. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Winds seem to be swaying in the opposite direction, but that'sbeside the point. If only the WP:AVOIDSPLIT/WP:SPINOUT contradiction didn't exist, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Like a list of characters, I feel this is an instance where optimal organization of content outweighs demonstrating independent notability. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't a list of characters, it's a list of objects. Do you need to cover every last Knightmare Frame for a reader to understand the story? Probably not. There's a time where these articles also constitute undue weight that a single character list does not, as its existence is more strongly supported by WP:SS and can be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. This entire list is excessive. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where you and I will have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that a series which predominantly focuses on a certain set of items should have a complete (that is not to say excessive, merely comphrensive) list of said items. It's like making an article about Power Rangers in general and not having a list of their mechs to turn to. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. But hey, look at this way. There's no way in hell this could be feasibly be rewritten in a manner that would allow it to pass at FLC/FAC (not sure which format it would take), while List of Naruto characters is prepping for FLC and I know that I could feasibly rewrite World of Naruto for a GA run. There's a good way to include the information in an encyclopedic manner, and having it all in one article isn't the way to go. It's roughly the equivalent of the jutsu lists we used to have at the Naruto articles, and even the present article (Jutsu (Naruto)) should be merged into World of Naruto. The in-universe context of these things is so specific that you'll never get adequate independent sourcing, and as this isn't a character list, I don't think that's the way to go. Also, judging from the present state of the article, there's a crapload of information that can be cut out, summarized better, and otherwise reduced, and I don't see why you can't include a description of the concept at Code Geass and then include the relevant Knightmare Frames with the respective characters for instance. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the FLC improbability. It's not my thing, nor, I would hazard, is it the thing of any of the other common editors for this series. That and the series is relatively new in dub, so getting reception/creation sources is difficult. Naruto's in filler hell now so it has had a while to collect such things. Even good article seems, at least in the near future, unlikely. However, not every article gets to those points. Some are likely never to. Doesn't mean we should get rid of them. The jutsu lists were far more excessive, loaded with one-or-two-offs (plot no jutsu) and split into four parts. They had it coming really. This is a much smaller list, and the potential expansion rate drops off as time passes. The problem with summarizing character-specific mechs here or there, the fact that I merged most of the characters not withstanding, is there are still a number of "all-purpose" mechs: used by multiple people, or variants on the type so used. That and, in at least one case, characters go from mech A to mech B. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As TRP said above, the prevalence and importance of Knightmare Frames within the series means that they are nearly as important as the characters. Suzaku is nothing without his Lancelot, and such a plot-important unit is something I'd like to know about. I don't need to know its exact height or weight, but I would like to know a bit more about it. As I said, I read these articles before I started watching the series, and they were very helpful in telling me what I needed to know. Imagine trying to learn about Evangelion without an article on the Evangelion units themselves, or Gundam without a list of mobile suits. We don't need a list of unimportant units (like listing the Britannian tanks or Japanese destroyers seen being destroyed early on), but the Knightmare Frames that are prevalent throughout the series deserve mention. the_one092001 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize the importance within the series, but my same argument is largely the same thing I just said to TRP. Note that removing this article doesn't mean the information itself gets deleted. There's simply better ways to organize the material that is more encyclopedic and applies the appropriate weight towards the topic. Take for instance in List of Naruto characters that the characters' abilities are summarized in their respective entries. There's no reason you can't take List of Code Geass characters, provide the same treatment, and end up with an article that has a realistic chance of going at FLC. Clumping giant loads of in-universe information into one article isn't the write way to go around things, and the article as it stands is just that. It fails WP:WAF miserably for being completely in-universe, WP:NOT for the same reason, and WP:WEIGHT for describing these in-universe concepts with excessive detail. You get a better treatment of the topic if you say include the information along with the relevant characters in the character list, which provides appropriate weight, satisfies WAF and NOT#PLOT, and produces a nice, encyclopedic article. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a separate article that concerns Naruto Jutsus. The overall concept and popular/important jutsus used by multiple characters are listed under Jutsu (Naruto). A separate list for the Knightmare Frames is more practical and useful because 1.)The character list is already too long, 2.)Some characters use multiple Frames, like Lelouch who goes through a Sutherland, Burai, the Gawain, and the Shinkiro, 3.)Certain variants are best listed together, such as the Lancelot, Lancelot Conquista, and Lancelot Club. A single article can give background on the Frames themselves, while also listing the information in a single place instead of scattering it in an article that is already too long. Imagine trying to list the mobile suits used in Gundam in their respective characters' pages. Athrun would have gone through enough suits to make a separate article for, and someone needs to determine where the information for the oft-seen ZAKU and GINN's go. Better to put it in one place to keep the rest of the articles clean. the_one092001 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that the discussion is leaning towards keep. Westrim (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is to give the writers a chance to clean the article up - deal with the multiple issues and provide evidence of notability. If the article remains in it's current state, it should be deleted. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is already well sourced as character lists go, especially anime character lists and mecha lists. Additionally, I believe that better sourcing is in fact possible, since information about Knightmare Frames has been published in Japanese magazines such as Newtype. On top of that, it should be taken into account that the show in question isn't over yet - there's still three more months before the show ends and the new material slows to a stop; I'd wager, for instance, that there'll be another couple of related magazine articles before the show ends. As for the article's general quality, it should improve once the show ends, stopping the crowd of people rushing to add their thoughts as soon as a new episode airs without regard for policy. Well, actually, it'll improve for certain if this AfD fails just like the Gundam articles do, since not only does the AfD bring up ideas on how to improve the article, but it draws a lot of attention from people who might know enough to improve the article but don't normally pay any attention to Wikipedia. Well, to summarize, I believe that the article can be and will be improved significantly if it isn't deleted, and it will improve more as the show continues. If the article (especially the sourcing) is still unsatisfactory a month or two after the show ends, on the other hand, then it might be worth another AfD - if this article isn't sufficiently sourced six months from now, it probably never will be. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, mostly WP:NOR (very little of this content is sourced) and WP:NOT (huge amount of in-universe information with no demostrable relevance in the real world); also indicates a fanboyish zeal for collecting cruft that reflects badly on Wikipedia as a project.  Sandstein   07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Do not call things cruft. Thanks!  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a sourcing issue, and there is no objectively defined guideline to determine what does or doesn't qualify as a violation of WP:PLOT. As of now, the entire no plot! argument seems like a misunderstanding of the text of the guideline, which is explicitly related to not having an article composed solely of a plot summary — that is, a sequential retelling of a story, and not simply "describing elements or concepts within a work of fiction." -- Fallacies (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad faith nomination per WP:Point. Yzak Jule (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing bad faith nor pointy about it. Such false, baseless accusations are, however uncivil. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * your above keep is more in trouble via WP:Point then this nomination --T-rex 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep I find Knightmares a key part of Code Geass. The characters and the series as a whole would be much different if Knightmares were not there. I have no idea where we would place the information, but deleting something that has such a vital role in the series would be a rather paculiar idea. If every series of Gundam has a list of the Moblie Suits, it would make sense to allow Code Geass to have the same. Besides, I have no idea where placement would be. Placing it on the main page would either make the section lacking for what is a key part of the series should have or make the entire page too long. Fenrir-of-the-Shadows (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no usable content. Wikipedia is not the place for this level of plot detail. --T-rex 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Referenced content is almost always useable somehow or other. Wikipedia as a paperless encyclopedia has a lot of leeway as to how much it can cover.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we determine what is of use to readers and what isn't? -- Fallacies (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In-universe plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is primarily a character list, not a plot summary. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a restructuring of events which take place in the fictional universe to be able to organize those events by character, instead of a chronological ordering. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (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.