Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets

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

This list is just a large, redundant plot summary riddled with original research. It doesn't even attempt to establish any sort of notability, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only the reason to keep it, it's a typical example of original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's only OR because I haven't gotten around to actually putting the sources in. What most non-fiction editors seem to forget is that fiction works inherently are based on the source that they come from, there are often no 3rd party sources to cite. The parts after the 7th Fleet are not my own, but based on what I have seen of the series (all 110 episodes, the first movie, and 4 of the Gaiden OVA's) they are all correct and can easily be cited from the series (if someone would be willing to do so). I do find the 13th and Yang Fleet entries excessive though. Regardless, it is clear that with the huge number of deletionists breaking out their crusade banners and rallying against any article they don't recognize, I won't bother. I will, however, just lay out the question of why it seems that an alarming number of AfD's are coming from one editor, and specifically within a particular section of Wikipedia (anime/manga). the_one092001 (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You could always use your Sandbox to create a good version of this article using references. Right now, there is not hint how can someone check all the facts which are written down. In addition, I don't doubt that the facts are accurate, but the only sources are within the fictional universe you are describing. This is certainly problematic for an encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Too late now, if it gets deleted once it is very unlikely it will survive again if I resurrect it even with suitable sources. In this case, the source is the work itself, since it is a fictional work that does not have a large number of (English) secondary sources. Most fictional works derive most of their citations from the work itself, since the work is the exposition of facts and plot. Supporting materials (such as the official website) are occasionally used as well, but the primary source is the work itself. the_one092001 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The references are obviously the work itself, and they can be easily added. Just list the places where they appear relevant. Having th eplot sections duplicated briefly here is a convenient reference, tying the work together. Third party sources are not necessary for plot. DGG (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But the article looks to be only plot, with nothing at all to show why this is notable. If no sources third party sources discuss the plot, it shouldn't have an article here. Adding primary sources wouldn't help it, in it's current state it is just an unencylopedic plot-recap.14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge/redirect Delete to Legend of the Galactic Heroes. If nominator is on a mission to clean up disproportionate in-world description, in relation to the larger encyclopedic coverage of the work, that is a good thing (see WP:PLOT). While it is difficult to decide what parts of this are worth merging, one would prefer to see more effort to resolve the many spinouts just like this editorially before resorting to AfD. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the plot is the primary source of reference within a fictional work, including the plot is necessary for the article. Unlike real world objects that exist separate of the events that they may be featured in, fictional objects are often referenced only in relation to the plot, thus the plot is a necessary part of the article. If one were to remove all instances of plot from this article, the only thing that would remain is a horde of infoboxes, since the plot is essentially the history of the object.the_one092001 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you miss the point about proportionality. If you are saying that there is nothing of an encyclopedic nature to be included on the topic other than plot summary and description of in-world elements, then that is a perfectly good argument – for deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same thing applies to nearly every other list of mecha or vehicles found in an anime, aside from extremely popular ones like Gundam and Evangelion (both of which have gained status simply due to their existence). The issue here IMO is less plot, but more notability (not notable in English-speaking countries since it was never officially translated. Very big in Japan, however).the_one092001 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of other stuff exists that ignores WP:NOT, and it is all unencyclopedic. The WP:N guideline specifically states under Presumed that the WP:NOT policy overrides. This discussion has persuaded me to change vote from merge to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Creator admits there are no reliable third party sources. Wikipedia doesn't exist to host fans' plot recaps.Yobmod (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I did not say that such sources do not exist. Indeed, the series is very popular in Japan to this day (despite its age)and very likely contains the same sources as would be expected of other major series (Pokemon, etc.). The issue here is that I do not have access to such sources, since I do not speak Japanese or have access to Japanese-made materials. The net effect is the same however: I do not have any sources to cite aside from the work itself. But the cause is different: not a lack of existence of sources, but instead a lack of access. the_one092001 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT applies. Article consists of nothing but plot elements. This is a frightening area of Wikipedia ... it appears that all the articles on this series consist of plot elements, and no attempt to provide any summary of real-world impact was ever made. Japanese Wikipedia summarises the series in one article, plot in about 4 paragraphs, and devotes roughly equal weight to the real world reception. It's apparently been quite successful, winning awards for quality and for enduring popularity. The English one looks more like an issue of Newtype.Kww (talk) 03:23, 20 September 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.