Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 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. leaning keep. Nom was withdrawn and there are equally strong arguments on both sides. Still no evidence relisting will form a better consensus. TravellingCari 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units

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

In-world list of fictional equipment with no evidence of real world notability and severe original research issues. With no third party sources it is hard to see this list ever being compliant with core policies such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per this contribution citing relevent third party sources. The article now clearly passes the inclusion guidelines so this discussion is more or less done. My thanks to Mythsearcher for digging these out. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, no proof of notability. Does not comply with policy. Jor  dan  Contribs  06:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: My God, Fancruft (and yes, I know fancruft is not a reason for deletion, but in this case I will ignore that rule). This article is entirely too long, it's written in an in-story perspective, and there's no evidence of outside notability whatsoever. This is why we have Wikia. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to feel free to ignore WP:ITSCRUFT, I'll up you a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ask why you don't go pick on, say, List of Star Wars spacecraft. Could it be a bit of WP:BIAS?  Wikia is an information ghetto.208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't know about List of Star Wars spacecraft. However, many Star Wars spacecraft clearly have become notable in the real world, such as the X-Wing, the Death Stars, and Star Destroyers. They're clearly iconic. I don't think the same can be said about the mechs listed here. As for Wikia being an "information ghetto", well, it's one I browse regularly. There's lots of interesting and useful stuff there (like wowwiki) that simply don't belong on Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And somehow Gundam, a series that is older than Star Wars itself, is not notable? Just because Gundam 00 hasn't become as notable in English-speaking countries doesn't mean that it isn't notable anywhere else, and now that it's coming to the US, it'll have even more notability. the_one092001 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I must correct you that Gundam is NOT older than Star Wars, Gundam is actually some what inspired by Star Wars instead, like the beam sabre is inspired by the Light sabre and Zaku is inspired by Storm Troopers. These are in fact confirmed by an early interview from Tomino himself.  However, I must say that Gundam series carries more influence than Star Wars in the Asia area, and probably earns much more money than Star Wars with its approximately 0.5 billion US dollars annual income franchise, there is, for cruft's sake, an International Gundam Society for the academical parts of it. MythSearchertalk 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I often associate Star Wars more with the 1980's and Gundam with the 1970's. the_one092001 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete just another list of fansquee masquerading as 'information'. JuJube (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Such cruftiness! X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRUFT2 and WP:NOCRUFT would like a word. the_one092001 (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep What's needed here is a revision, not a deletion. Mecha lists are standard, particularly for Gundam series. At the moment it is rather too informative,but that is not a reason for deletion. Gundam SEED/Destiny's mecha list was much worse before it was slimmed down and reorganized; the same can and should be done here particularly because the start of the new season means that the article will only be continuously be resurrected (as well as continue to have a reason to exist). Notability is not a suitable criteria for deletion (due to its tremendously subjective nature) and for fictional works, first party sources are generally accepted as being the most reliable (since no one knows the work better than the authors themselves). the_one092001 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide real world sources to show the notability of the content of this article out of universe? That is the standard for keeping this list and the article also needs to be compliant with the policies/guidelines I listed in the nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The same argument that applies to the other Gundam lists applies here. Gundams themselves have become a cultural phenomenon. Just as how Star Trek made the Enterprise and a multitude of other starships popular (as did Star Wars), Gundam did the same with mecha. Gundam 00 is relevant not only in Japan but is also slated for release in the US in November. Gundams are a central (arguably THE central) element of both the plot as well as the metaseries' fame. Hence, as part of not only the Gundam phenomenon, as well as an integral part of an award-winning television program aired in multiple countries, they have suitable notability to be listed. And before anyone launches into a tirade about how it just isn't notable, wake up and realize that notability is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Just because one person doesn't think it's important doesn't mean it isn't important to anyone else. The sources here (for this article) are all first-party because relatively few third-party sources ever exist for a fictional work, usually due to copyright issues. the_one092001 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per real world notability, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate this real-world notability, using reliable third-party sources. Oh, and get yourself a user account. This discussion will, of course, not be deleted, but will be preserved as a record, no matter what the outcome. For now, I !vote Delete.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr(s). IP can register when and if (s)he chooses. That was really inapropriate.Abyssal (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Our anonymous friends will have trouble having their views heard here in AfD without accounts. I'm not sure why my comments or tone are any more inappropriate than yours. No-one's actually produced any reliable third-party sources to show the notability of this list's contents. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Very thorough coverage of a well known anime. If deletionist users dislike such "cruft" they should refrain from reading it, not ruin it for those who are interested. The notability and third party coverage of the series should be obvious from the 60 references used in the series' own article. If the deletion nominators would put as much effort into building articles as was put into this one, rather than deleting them, Wikipedia woud be much better off. Abyssal (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are all in universe game guides and do not in themselves provide the evidence of real world OOU notability that is required to meet our core inclusion criteria. Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the anime wasn't notable, though, who would bother to make game guides about it in the first place? Abyssal (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepandClean up Actually, this list contain info for mecha from a running TV series, two running manga series (00P and 00F) and a serie of shortstories (00V). It's better to have them pile in single list than have dozen of them seperate. However, the style of list need to change. L-Zwei (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but for gods sake make it readable to normal people. Lists of mecha are standard spinout articles for most mecha series since they play a large role in the plot, just as much or moreso than the human characters. The sheer amount of crazy model numbers and Gundamcruft has to go though in favor of a more readable layout. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would "normal people" (who aren't Gundam fans) be reading this? As far as I can tell the only people for whom this would be valuable would be Gundam fans. This really belongs on a Gundam wiki (yay Wikia), not here. Also, WP:NOTGUIDE. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would "normal people" (who aren't historians) be reading [any histoy article]? Why would "normal people" (who aren't mathemeticians) be reading [any math-related article]?  Why would "normal people" (who aren't [xxx]) be reading [xxx]?  76.116.247.15 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they wanted to learn about Gundam mechas. More people probably care about this than just about any city or school article here. And WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't seem to apply here.Abyssal (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's valuable to anyone who wants to know about the mechas in the series, similar to how someone would want to know about the episodes or characters. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would say for any given user, 95% of this encyclopedia does not appeal to them. Why would any normal person (i.e. a non-military oriented person) ever want to know about the upcoming Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers? Why would a "normal" person (i.e. someone who doesn't care about Pixar) ever bother to check the WALL-E article? Claiming that because a "normal" person, who just happens to have absolutely no interest in whatever is being discussed won't read the article is not a valid reason for deletion. Who are these "normal" people you refer to? Did Wikipedia establish some set guideline as to what exactly defines a "normal person" and what they are likely to read while I was sleeping last night? the_one092001 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability due to a lack of independent and reliable sources. An in-universe article going into far too much detail about fictional devices mentioned only in the fictional work or other woeks from the franchise owner. Much of the article appears to be original research. That said, a list is far preferable to separate stub articles on each gizmo mentioned in a body of fictional work. Edison (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the_one092001. This is a standard breakout article to keep the main article from getting too long, much as various other list of vehilces such as for Star Wars or Star Trek.  Lack of sources is only grounds for deletion if sources do not exist.  Considering how major a series this is, there should be plenty of sources, it's just most of them would be in Japanese. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, if sources exist please can you cite some? Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other arguments aside from that? Or are you just going to keep emphasizing how none of us happen to speak Japanese? Notability itself isn't a reason for deletion (on its own), and as others have mentioned, this list is considered a spinout article of the main Gundam 00 article. Since the mobile suits (especially the titular Gundams) are arguably the entire point of the series (it's what makes it a GUNDAM series, after all), and are central to the plot (almost to the point where the characters are secondary), then notability for this article has been established. The mecha in this anime play a role at least as important as that of the characters, and I have yet to see anyone going after character lists. If the mechs were only a passing plot point that appeared and disappeared, I would be inclined to agree with the lack of notability. But they're not. They're central elements that require explanation in order for the reader to understand the series. There is far too much information to be included in the main article, hence the spinout. the_one092001 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The use of this list to contain entries for multiple linked anime/manga series suggests to me that its presence as a stand-alone list (rather than being merged into the relevant character list sections, the other option) is warranted as a means of minimizing duplicated coverage. Cleanup of jargon and WP:WAF violation can be done as needed. --erachima talk 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Personally, I believe the list seems fine as a work in progress (because the second season of the TV series will be starting soon, plenty of other material will probably be added), but if it needs to be shortened, then doing something like the list of CE Mobile Units makes sense. In terms of notability, however, it's hard for me to understand why this would not be notable and qualifies for deletion. As a classical music lover, I've seen plenty of Wiki articles concerning composers or musicians that are "notable" only in the most broad sense of the term, and yet all of the Gundam series are a huge cultural phenomenon in Japan, making them presumably notable. As for third-party sources, there have been a few (not many, but a few) in Japanese, which we should reference. --Egocentrism04 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue is not whether Gundam is notable, it's whether these mechs have notability outside of the series. Personally, I find that really unlikely. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is purely whether we want this information presented as its own list or not. The mechs used in a mecha series are a necessary part of the subject, the question is what depth of coverage is necessary, and whether it's best covered as a section in Gundam 00, or as this list, or with each suit covered along with the character who pilots it in the character list for the series. --erachima talk 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it is a recent, major Gundam series I'd imagine that there're a lot of Japanese sources giving commentary about the new mechs. Some conceptual stuff could possibly be found too, though I'm not sure how common stuff that is for Gundams. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here that people keep bringing up seems to instead be "I don't think other people care, so it should be deleted." Gundam series are just as much about the mobile suits as they are about the characters or even the plot, thus creating an article without any explanation of the series' mobile suits leaves the article and its description woefully incomplete. I have yet to see objections about character list spinoffs, so I fail to see how something as major as the mobile suits in a Gundam series (look at the title of the series!) lacks sufficient notability, unless the series as a whole lacks notability (which Gundam 00 does not; just look at its sources). the_one092001 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strang Keep please delete GN-001 Gundam Exia first.--Burning Flame (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG keep This article is not doing anything wrong. The information it provides is the result of original research...about a freaking CARTOON!  Everything about there not being any real-world stuff... again, CARTOON.  Come on, lighten up.   User: Anonymous Gundam Fan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.168.106 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's why we have Wikia. WP:NOR still stands, and so does WP:NOTABILITY.
 * No it doesn't. No specific reasons have been provided why this particular article fails notability, and as others have pointed out, this seems more and more like an "I don't like it" argument. The only possible argument is a lack of sources, not a true lack of notability. WP:N itself states that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." At worst, this article has only questionable notability, but even then WP:N states that: " For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." I have seen no attempt on the part of the AfD nominator to clean up the article, no merge suggestions, just a straight AfD, which is clearly not called for under these circumstances. the_one092001 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking over the article's references, numbers two and three appear to be licensed/official sites, and the fourth one is used as the basis for original research. The first one, based on its usage, seems to just list who designed each of these robots. While their names should be listed in the primary article as being part of the artistic team, I don't think that merits a whole article. There is similar precedent regarding TV episodes, which must have more than a listing of cast and crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintrick (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mecha are an integral part of mecha anime. While not every, single giant robot deserves an article all its own, a list shouldn't be out of the question. "Lists of mecha" are a standard practice for editors associated with WP:ANIME because we know how significant these fictional elements are; think of them as characters, not weapons (that goes double for Gundams, which are "clearly iconic").--Nohansen (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nohansen. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Lists like this, as has already been said many times, are standard practice for mecha anime. The mecha are by definition an important part of any mecha anime, but the main article would get way too bloated if they were listed there. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is what this nomination seems to be about, and that's not a good reason to delete. No, contrary to what many deletionists seem to think, is the fact that the article needs cleanup a reason to get rid of it. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Article Cleanup: I have just cleaned out a very large amount of the in-universe information, including all of the content boxes that were taking up so much space. What do people feel about the page now? I am willing to say keep for now, if information about the notability of the mechs in the real-universe are put in and the cleanup continues. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For further discussion of the page cleanup, I would suggest putting it in the article's talk page, lest we get bogged down here with it. the_one092001 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that what remains after the cleanup really indicates how little content the article actually has. It is now just a very long list of brief (generally one-sentence) desriptions of mecha and how they appear in the universe. I don't see how that meets notability.Mintrick (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, the article looks less crufty now but the core issue remains that it is all original research as it stands and there are no secondary sources to demonstrate the subject as standalone notable outside the main article and in the real world. I appreciate the argument that the serious is notable and hiving off these bits keeps the article clearer but the fact remains that despite many arguments to keep no sources that discuss the suits have been put forward and that the core notability of the subjectr has not been established in the usual way. I'm still waiting on sources and although they have been asserted, they have not been produced. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the entire text of WP:N before citing just the parts that support your own argument and you can see why this AfD is uncalled for, at least for the moment. No campaign for cleanup was initiated before hand, and no request for sources was ever added. This instead seems to just be an extension of a deletion-biased editor's will to clean out everything that does not conform to his/her own subjective standard of notability. I assume good faith even by saying this; my comments are based on the fact that a large number of AfD's aimed at fictional articles tend to be based solely on bias since the nominator him/herself does not care for the subject matter. the_one092001 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I haven't read N? Have you read V & OR and RS? The article struggles in all these areas and once the original research is removed there is barely a line for each bit. There is clearly no sourced substance here otherwise someone would have provided them rather then simply asserted their significance and it only takes two decent sources to keep an article. Claiming that you are assuming good faith when you clearly are not just looks wrong. So, where are the sources that allows the content of the article to be verified so that it is not original research that we don't do? Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you ignored the parts of WP:N that would have established a clear procedure PRIOR to an AfD tells me that. I said it before, there was no request for sources or request for cleanup. Just a tag on an article that is already a clearly defined part of Wikipedia. The only part of the guideline you cited was the part that called for deletion if a lack of sources was found after an exhaustive search, and made no effort to induce even a minor search. For WP:RS, the writers and the fictional source itself are the most credible and accurate sources since they are the ones that are creating the content. Unlike real-world events where people are free to write about them, fictional events are solely the creation of their writers, hence the series itself is the most credible source. All works based on the series inherently have to be licensed by the creator, thus eliminating any truly "independent" sources. For WP:OR, in its current state, the article makes no statements that cannot be verified by watching the series or reading the sidestory manga. Episode citations should be added, but all of it is easily citable. WP:V is the same; the primary source is the work itself, and all of what survives can be verified. Whatever cannot be verified can simply be removed without the deletion of the entire article. WP:FICT also describes the procedures for creating spinout articles for lists of less-notable but still important elements, such as character lists or in this case mecha lists since the mecha are an integral part of the series. And I am assuming good faith, claiming that I don't shows a lack of such on your part, however. The point of my statement was simply to make other editors aware of and consider their motives, and how they could possibly be influenced by a personal lack of interest in the topic, instead of a truly objective analysis of the merits of the article. the_one092001 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While the anime's definitely notable, I'm not so sure about the mecha featured in the series. Nevertheless, the mechas were featured on various real-life merchandises, such as Gunplas, so I guess that's considered real-world notability. Besides, thousands of lists similar to this exist on wiki, why not delete those as well? The Sli my One 10:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no doubt as to the notability of the series. But even after cleanup, the article now under discussion is substantially written as an in-universe account, lacking documentation in secondary sources or any indication of the notability of the machines that are the subject matter of the list. There seems to be a degree of bias in favour of presuming the notability of items from this series, absent any corroboration. As a further example, the article Mobile weapons relates to this series, a fact which might well surprise someone looking for real-world military hardware. My !vote stands. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So we should delete it just because it might impinge on a term that isn't even used to describe real-world weapons/strategies? Should we delete our entire section on Bleach as well just because there happens to be a cleaning product also called Bleach? the_one092001 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say we should disambiguate it to Mobile weapons (Gundam). On another note, would a better translation be "mobile weaponry" instead of "mobile weapons"? I don't know Japanese, but that sounds like it might make a bit more sense. Anyway, this is why we have disambig pages, so that we can have a Bleach and Bleach (anime). TallNapoleon (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "mobile weapon" isn't even used outside of Gundam, at least not officially. We call tanks and APCs "armored vehicles" and warfare involving their use "maneuver warfare." The term Mobile Weapons fits because it refers to the entire mobile suit as a single entity, and mobile weapons as a distinct class. "Mobile Weapon" is the best grammatical translation, because it can be used to refer to the weapons as a unit unto themselves, not as part of something else. the_one092001 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep No substantial reasons given for deletion. All reasons put forth are either perjoratives (eg various cruft, fancruft etc votes) or reasons the article should be tagged for cleanup, not deleted. Jtrainor (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep source: Otona no Gundam 3: Mechanic and Business, Otona no Gundam: Perfect. Not in plural since the latter is a combination of 1~3 only and not dependent. This source goes into detail about the marketing and such of Gundam, in the real world, which includes a listing of all mechanical units that appeared in all Gundam anime series, where Gundam 00 is also featured.  A combined page would be unreasonably long, so a separate page is necessary.  The list is not readable? make it readable, and sourced, deletionists can first see WP:CRUFTCRUFT and learn that their world is only a sub set of this real world, where a lot of information and knowledge is not available to them just because it is in another language and/or they don't bother to search for it.  Things said, I don't really like the whole current state of the whole Gundam project management scheme and products as well as the cruftcruft guys hatred on fictional items where I get no help in turning things to less in-universe.  MythSearchertalk 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what these sources are please? Are they independant sources? Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are published by Nikkei Business Publications, Inc. as a part of series of books used to study the marketing of different companies, and Nekkei is a third party company, not a part of the Gundam franchise and branch of Bandai. This source goes into detail about the mechas in all Gundam series and talk about their marketing value, strategy and development of franchising, etc.  Each series is viewed independently by itself. MythSearchertalk 06:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing these forward. I have withdrawn the nomination based on the sources you cite. Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 30 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.