Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. Human enhancements within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete as a violation of WP:NOT section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" subsection 1. This is entirely in-universe information, more suited to a fanwiki than an encyclopedia.  There are no secondary sources at all, and no indication of any actual importance to anything outside the fictional universe.  HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks independent and reliable sourcing, so fails WP:N. Also violates WP:NOT since it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Written in an "in universe style." Edison (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep - no evidence of WP:BEFORE on part of nominator, and pending the result of the DRV for another Gundam Seed fictional items list. --Malkinann (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Redirects are cheep and editors can salvage any usable content in the future. Based on previous AfDs, its obvious that Anthem didn't attempt WP:BEFORE, particularly point 5. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do follow WP:BEFORE. The operative word in that quote is "useful", and I can't imagine anyone typing "List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements" into the search bar. --Anthem 07:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Who is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The weapon names I can see as being possible redirects but not a whole list, Delete per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: What manner of procedure does Malkinann believe ought to have been done instead? (Let's leave aside the strong possibility that "Leave the article alone" would be the desired answer.)  This is plainly in-universe information, extremely unlikely to have any out-of-universe reliable sourcing, and certainly lacking sourcing which discusses this particular subject in the "significant detail" required.  Whatever result a DRV on another article has does not serve as an injunction on us coming to a decision on this one ... the more so in that the DRV was not proposed on the merits of the article - a decision DRV can't really make - but on whether the AfD was properly closed. (might as well cut and paste ...)   Ravenswing  06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:BEFORE: "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged". Those three parts of WP:BEFORE are of the most concern to me in this AFD. As the AFD I referred to was on a similar topic, and the sources presented there were disregarded (apparently without anyone voting to delete reading the sources), I regard the DRV as being pertinent to this AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was deleted because there was a consensus that those sources were terrible. --Anthem 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? That's why that AFD is now at DRV.  --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The focus should be on this article, are there any reliable sources someone can find that can cover the content of the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one, Otona no Gundam got some mention of this, mainstream and analytical as required by deletionists. I cannot think of any other secondary sources right now, so I am also leaning towards a merge to main article, with source(s) stating the story have a background of conflict between natural human and designer babies. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do.  It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE. Let's take the first sentence of your specific concern.  For it to be at all valid, you would have to expect that substantive changes have been made in the article, with earlier versions having merits the current one lacks.  A casual skip through the revision history shows, in fact, that the article has been largely unchanged throughout its six year history (and surprisingly so given the number of edits), with the biggest change being the removal of images. (Indeed, the vast majority of the edits seem to be made by fans of the series disagreeing with one another's interpretations.) Let's take the second sentence.  The nom says outright that "no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources" exist.  No such sources are proffered in the article.  No such sources have ever been proffered in the article.  You do not, yourself, claim that any such sources exist, or have come up with any, and of course, you know that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain such material to provide them. The last part?  I see no reason to assume the nom didn't consider it ... and reject it.  I would have done so myself.    ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. Not a plausible search term. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas, who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nonetheless, almost every editor responding in good faith has advocated the deletion of the article. Do you consider this AfD "disruptive," and if so, what makes it so?   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the main Gundam SEED article. This really isn't given much attention in the show itself except as background information and thus it's general noteability to the wider world is questionable at best. Jtrainor (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again what reader is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The search term with the wording is unlikely. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (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.