Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony mobile units


 * 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, defaulting to keep. MastCell Talk 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of After Colony mobile units

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list of units in a comic series. Suitable for a anime wiki or the like, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It WOULD make more sense to be split into difference series with each and and everyone of them have a short description. No description, no article, not even in a list, which is suitable for minor characters(some of these are major characters in the series). Since most of these have separate article already, I recommend Merge with those separate articles that is very very likely to be deleted on their own and Move to List of mobile units in New Mobile Report Gundam W. MythSearchertalk 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete More Gundam world items. While I respect that someone is interested in what appears to be a very detailed fictional universe, there is a limit to how much an encylopedia should be inclusive of fantasy rather than reality.  There are other websites, besides Wikipedia, that can host something of such unlimited magnitude, and such limited interest.  Mandsford 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is kind of silly to delete the list page when the articles on the individual mobile units aren't being addressed. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki to a fan wiki.  WP is not a directory of units in a fictional show - This content is ideal for a fansite/wiki Corpx 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See for a book that is clearly out of universe.  How much of a third-party source it is...open question.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The guidebook is irrelevant, as it still only addresses the topic in a in-universe fashion; ergo, the article still fails WP:WAF. WP:FICT. As such, it does not qualify as adequate out-of-universe coverage. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * reply WP:WAF states that minor characters can have their own page, and some of these are Major chracters in the series. MythSearchertalk 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The style of writing is irrelevant, it's still out of universe, in the sense that it's a non-fiction work existing outside of a fiction series. Thus I find your objection unconvincing.  The series is notable enough for people to write and sell books about concepts within it.  Makes for a case for notability for me.  WAF concerns can be addressed with appropriate writing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Was meant to be WP:FICT. See below. In any case, you still have not acquired the point. It still remains irrelevant as to whether it is covered in the guidebooks because they still only address the subject in an in-universe context. There is no sources that address the subject beyond the in-universe scope; ergo it still fails WP:FICT, which states that articles must have real-world coverage independent of the subject itself. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 08:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I consider WP:FICT to be a very unconvincing argument. This is a sub-article of an existing notability, the adequate coverage of which is highly important to the main subject. If you *really* wanted to do so, you could find reviews that discussed individual Gundams, but I'd consider such things to be less than helpful.  Sorry, but I'd rather not read what somebody thinks of the Epyon or Wing Zero or Tallgeese.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Extremely bad faith nom. Has mass-nominated several Gundam articles with almost the exact same text for the reason, and has obviously not read any of them, as is shown by his reference to the material as being from a comic. Jtrainor 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   —  Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. I feel that having spotted multiple Gundam articles with the same issues, raising an AFD for any such articles is justified.--Oscarthecat 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any bad faith Corpx 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the concern is that instead of taking an approach of "Hmm, can this be fixed" you've been jumping to a number of deletion nominations without soliciting input first. I'm not saying it's bad faith, but it is not something I can quite commend either.  There are articles which require quick action, and there are those that don't.  And these kinds of things tend to be a bit disputed anyway.  See the Spells in Harry Potter discussion.  It's not so much bad faith here, but it is kicking the anthill a bit.   FrozenPurpleCube 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate', incorrectly claims the subjetc only occurs in a comic and it given no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I didn't see that. I consider that in something of bad taste.  Deletions aren't something to boast about.  Then again, I don't like BJAODN either.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jtrainor. The names may change but the same tired arguments which have failed time and time again never do. MalikCarr 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep List articles are the most appropriate way of treating Gundam mecha in general. Separate articles are only for the really famous ones. What's with this mass nomination anyway? --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 25 August 2007 (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.