Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons


 * 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. The lack of reliable third-party sources about this topic, as raised by the "delete" opinions, is a very strong argument based in policy, see WP:V. It is not addressed (or only in passing, or evaded) by the "keep" opinions, which are therefore given substantially less weight. This leads me to conclude that consensus exists to delete this article.  Sandstein  17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, this plot-only list of fictional weapons in a specific Gundam manga series is not encyclopaedic. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources which cover the topic. Previous discussion closed as no consensus. Anthem of joy (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC) adding strike-out of AfD nomination by sockpuppet  Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is very discriminating by covering mobile suits from one series. In fact, because of the importance of mobile suits in the overall plot of the series, having a list of mobile suits is no different having a list of characters. It also doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR because it actually doesn't give a lot of detail. The faults with this list are that it is too geared to "udder" fans and doesn't adequately describe each mobile weapons role in the overall plot. I have no doubt that some mobile weapons that only play a minor part in the plot and could be trimmed off. But those are cleanup issues and not reasons for deletion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any secondary coverage ? I don't really understand why we should have independent lists of weapons from part of the universe. If they're really notable, they can be on List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. --Anthem of joy (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as the base subject is notable, which Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny are, and it is a major plot element, then a spin out list is appropriate. Also, the general mechanical designs of the suits have been commented on in reviews of the series. And finally, it would not appropriate to combine them to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam because that list would be far too broad in scope and any organization would be haphazard because it combines fictional elements form multiple unrelated series whose only connection with each other is that they are under the Gundam brand. I've already spun off several series specific lists from this and another list, though I cannot remember its location at the time. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep if we have lists of Star Trek starships, then why not have this? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anthem of joy (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - In any other series, I'd say merge, but Gundam is too broad of a franchise to throw all the elements into one list. Because the Mobile Weapons ARE what the series are about, it isn't unreasonable to consider them major plot elements (or like Farix said, like characters). As long as there's coverage, the topic is presumed notable. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I doubt that there are reliable source for the individual weapons to presume that they should be covered, particularly sources that provide reception, significance or real-world perspective. I do not believe that knowing the mobile weapons (even the notable ones plot-wise) is necessary to understand the plot of the series since they do not interact the way characters do and the machinery is not self-conscious in the series. Whatever is needed to understand about them is already covered in the article mobile weapons. Per the criteria of avoiding unnecessary splits, I also do not think that this is a valid article split since it doesn't meet neither the general notability criterion nor any specific notability criteria. This article is more a complete exposition of all possible details, not a summary of accepted knowledge and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world perspective. Since the content falls into what Wikipedia is not and such a list is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and not related to human knowledge, I do not think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and therefore it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TheFarix listed four reliable sources. The question here is not whether the information on the page is encyclopedic, the question is whether the topic is encyclopedic and we argue that it is indeed a notable topic. Just for the record "mobile weapon" and "suit" refer to mechs; this isn't a collection of fictional guns or swords, these are serious plot elements. I agree that this article is very poor in quality.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Having reliable sources does not immediately convey notability to a topic. As stated in WP:LISTN, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables and, per WP:GNG, sources must address the subject directly in detail. The sources cited here address the series and show notability for them, not for the mobile weapons. They do not address the mobile suits in detail and merely comment on the quality of their designs in regards with the overall design of the series, nothing like the unnecessary exposition of details from a plot perspective present in the discussed list. The external links within the article are either primary sources or non-reliable and non-independent of the subject sources so they do not show notability either. And also, per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works, something that the mobile suits by themselves do not have, so the subject of the list is non-encyclopedic and, therefore, not suitable for inclusion, which is also stated in WP:SALAT. The fictional mobile suits are already covered in sufficient detail in other Gundam-related articles and given that they do not have real-world notability by themselves, that's more than enough. Jfgslo (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think an inheritance of notability argument has been made here, but even so, that isn't strictly true. There is a reason why wikipedia hasn't been able to come up with a concensus on fiction-specific notability criteria. Project consensus has generally treated such lists as spin-offs of the plot section, which is why they're generally plot heavy. A properly treated list would include a balance of real-world information as well and plenty of sources. But the quality of the article (read, the fact that it is all plot) has no relevance on a deletion discussion.  What is at issue here whether or not one could reasonably contruct an article on this topic.  It might be that this is better off merged into the parent article, but that is a discussion best left to the article talkpages.  AfD is not the place for forcing editorial decisions.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't show how the article does not fall into WP:DEL, it merely expresses your personal opinion without pointing to specific guidelines. And while your argument may be relevant in a different discussion, this is an AfD, so you need to base your arguments in Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Jfgslo (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims to understand policy so well, it seems strange that you don't recognise that I've been paraphrasing policy this whole time. I don't need to spam up a bunch of links to make a solid argument here, I just need to show that the topic meets Wikipedia minimum standards for inclusion (which has been done). The burden of proof lies with those arguing for deletion, to prove that there are valid reasons for deletion according to policy.  You have not done that.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But you've not show how this list falls into any of the categories listed at WP:DEL. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kraftlos. No, you haven't. All you have done is pointing out that project consensus (I assume WikiProject manga and anime) has decided to accept some lists as part of the plot construction, which is not supported by policy or guidelines and does not prove that the article meets the criteria of WP:LISTN or WP:SALAT. That is not discussing the individual merits of this article based in polices and guidelines. You also stated that the sources that review the series are proof that the list is notable, which is why I mentioned that notability is not inherited. I quote from WP:V: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The topic here is not the Gundam SEED  series but the mobile suits. The article does not provide any reliable third-party source and, per WP:BEFORE, making good-faith attempt show that such sources don't exist. Moreover, falling into What Wikipedia is not (like WP:PLOT) is also part of WP:DEL. If as you say the article should be treated as part of a plot section, that makes it a content fork, also part of WP:DEL
 * I'm trying to explain to you what kind of article this is and what sort of coverage is expected in this sort of article. I'm not arguing for an article with just plot, or that project consensus overrides WP:N - if you think that's what I'm saying, then I don't know what else to say here; I've been very clear here. A subject is presumed notable if it has received coverage by reliable independent sources (read: sources plural, as in two or more reliable sources).  This topic has such coverage and does not meet any of the deletion criteria.  However poorly written, the article topic is valid, therefore it should not be deleted.  Articles should only be deleted if there's no possibility of making a viable article on that topic.  Keep in mind that an article does not need to have said reliable sources in it to avoid deletion, it just has to be demonstrated that said sources exist, there is no deadline here. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @TheFarix. In which way do I not show that the list falls into WP:DEL? Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The list clearly passes WP:SALAT because the inclusion criteria is not too general, too broad in scope, nor too specific. Secondly, the list also pass WP:LISTN, which is a rather recent and very controversial addition, because Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny and their mobile suits have are heavily mentioned in most coverage of the two series. The three links I provided above was just a sample. However, including Newtype USA, which I previously mentioned has several articles covering the series listed as fallows.
 * (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
 * (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
 * (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits)
 * And I have not finished going through 2007 and 2008 yet. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three links that you provided (which for notability purposes are only two since two of them are from the same publication) do not show notability for the mobile suits. As I mentioned, they are passing mentions, not significant coverage per the WP:GNG. And all these ones that you have provided above count only as one since they all are from the same author and publication. Also, sources about the series that mention the mobile suits by merely repeating the plot of the series are not proof of notability. Neither are the ones that mention a bundle package with an action figure. So, three sources do not show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. And these sources show notability for the series since that is the topic covered in detail within them, not the mobile suits. Furthermore, there is also the fact that the sources only serve to establish a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. I quote from the WP:GNG: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Without real-world context, this subject is unsuitable because is WP:PLOT and, without any references within the article, it is still a WP:CFORK, so it falls in WP:DEL even if the sources provided showed notability. If you believe that this article passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN (which I don't because the subject of the list is trivial and non-encyclopedic, and it has not it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG), then you should try to improve the article instead of trying to establish the notability of the subject because that is only one of several valid reason for deletion in which the article falls. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles at AfD technically don't need to be improved during the brief window to survive. Like I said, it's only necessary to show that the article topic is valid and a proper article could be written on the topic. Would you please explain why the topic is inherantly unencyclopedic rather than throwing links around? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if the article can be improved and I think it's quite clear that the subject of the list itself is not notable and any possible improvement to it would still leave the article as a content fork and a plot-only text, still being inappropriate material for Wikipedia. As all the text is unreferenced, there is no usable content either, so there is no reason to keep it around. It is inherently non-encyclopedic because: no reliable third-party sources address the topic as a group or set, only primary sources or fan pages; it is a redundant derivative based exclusively on fictional elements of two notable works and has no significance or relevance as a stand-alone article; it is trivial because it only adds extra details to the plot of the series, indiscriminately adding information instead of being a concise plot summary; and the subject lacks reception or significance in the real-world by itself. I'm sure that if this were a Gundam fan-encyclopedia it would be appropriate material, but not in Wikipedia where fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. Jfgslo (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have not finished going through 2007 and 2008 yet. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three links that you provided (which for notability purposes are only two since two of them are from the same publication) do not show notability for the mobile suits. As I mentioned, they are passing mentions, not significant coverage per the WP:GNG. And all these ones that you have provided above count only as one since they all are from the same author and publication. Also, sources about the series that mention the mobile suits by merely repeating the plot of the series are not proof of notability. Neither are the ones that mention a bundle package with an action figure. So, three sources do not show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. And these sources show notability for the series since that is the topic covered in detail within them, not the mobile suits. Furthermore, there is also the fact that the sources only serve to establish a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. I quote from the WP:GNG: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Without real-world context, this subject is unsuitable because is WP:PLOT and, without any references within the article, it is still a WP:CFORK, so it falls in WP:DEL even if the sources provided showed notability. If you believe that this article passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN (which I don't because the subject of the list is trivial and non-encyclopedic, and it has not it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG), then you should try to improve the article instead of trying to establish the notability of the subject because that is only one of several valid reason for deletion in which the article falls. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles at AfD technically don't need to be improved during the brief window to survive. Like I said, it's only necessary to show that the article topic is valid and a proper article could be written on the topic. Would you please explain why the topic is inherantly unencyclopedic rather than throwing links around? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if the article can be improved and I think it's quite clear that the subject of the list itself is not notable and any possible improvement to it would still leave the article as a content fork and a plot-only text, still being inappropriate material for Wikipedia. As all the text is unreferenced, there is no usable content either, so there is no reason to keep it around. It is inherently non-encyclopedic because: no reliable third-party sources address the topic as a group or set, only primary sources or fan pages; it is a redundant derivative based exclusively on fictional elements of two notable works and has no significance or relevance as a stand-alone article; it is trivial because it only adds extra details to the plot of the series, indiscriminately adding information instead of being a concise plot summary; and the subject lacks reception or significance in the real-world by itself. I'm sure that if this were a Gundam fan-encyclopedia it would be appropriate material, but not in Wikipedia where fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. Jfgslo (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have not finished going through 2007 and 2008 yet. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three links that you provided (which for notability purposes are only two since two of them are from the same publication) do not show notability for the mobile suits. As I mentioned, they are passing mentions, not significant coverage per the WP:GNG. And all these ones that you have provided above count only as one since they all are from the same author and publication. Also, sources about the series that mention the mobile suits by merely repeating the plot of the series are not proof of notability. Neither are the ones that mention a bundle package with an action figure. So, three sources do not show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. And these sources show notability for the series since that is the topic covered in detail within them, not the mobile suits. Furthermore, there is also the fact that the sources only serve to establish a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. I quote from the WP:GNG: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Without real-world context, this subject is unsuitable because is WP:PLOT and, without any references within the article, it is still a WP:CFORK, so it falls in WP:DEL even if the sources provided showed notability. If you believe that this article passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN (which I don't because the subject of the list is trivial and non-encyclopedic, and it has not it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG), then you should try to improve the article instead of trying to establish the notability of the subject because that is only one of several valid reason for deletion in which the article falls. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles at AfD technically don't need to be improved during the brief window to survive. Like I said, it's only necessary to show that the article topic is valid and a proper article could be written on the topic. Would you please explain why the topic is inherantly unencyclopedic rather than throwing links around? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if the article can be improved and I think it's quite clear that the subject of the list itself is not notable and any possible improvement to it would still leave the article as a content fork and a plot-only text, still being inappropriate material for Wikipedia. As all the text is unreferenced, there is no usable content either, so there is no reason to keep it around. It is inherently non-encyclopedic because: no reliable third-party sources address the topic as a group or set, only primary sources or fan pages; it is a redundant derivative based exclusively on fictional elements of two notable works and has no significance or relevance as a stand-alone article; it is trivial because it only adds extra details to the plot of the series, indiscriminately adding information instead of being a concise plot summary; and the subject lacks reception or significance in the real-world by itself. I'm sure that if this were a Gundam fan-encyclopedia it would be appropriate material, but not in Wikipedia where fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. Jfgslo (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No reliable third party sources independent of the subject, as per WP:V and WP:N. Moreover, this is a plot-only or plot-mainly description of a fictional work with no real information about significance or reception, which violates WP:JUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The quality of the article is not what is the issue. Its the notability of the topic.  TheFarix has shown four sources that give some time to the topic. No one is arguing that article doesn't need to be improved.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability and WP:MOSFICT that leads up to it. Right now the article is fully in it's own Mobile Suit Gundam SEED world, and notability is not WP:INHERITED here in the real world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD evaluates the article topic, not is current contents. No one is arguing that such a high level of inuniverse plot summary is apropriate, no one is arguing that this topic inherits notability from the parent article, just that a spin-out article is a standard practice across most fiction articles. TheFarix has provided four sources that would satisfy the GNG, MOSFICT isn't relevant here.-- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't buy your argument that four vague mentions in reviews on anime websites counts as significant coverage in reliable sources. If the majority of this information in the article was reproduced in independent reliable sources, then perhaps I would support keeping it. Anthem of joy (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that both the series and its mobile suits were covered in several issues of Newtype USA, but I'll have to look back to see the extent of that coverage. However, there are no "ratios" about how much of an article's or list's is sourced to primary sources vs those by third-party sources. The three sources I gave above are "independent reliable sources", but apparently, you are dismissing them do to your lack of familiarity with the topic in general. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources include appropriate scholarship, and coverage in mainstream news organisations. If a topic has received no attention in scholarship and there are no secondary sources which have the same academic integrity as scholarship, the topic is not encyclopaedic. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources include any publish source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. At no point are reliable sources limited to just "scholarly" or "mainstream" sources because both terms are highly subjective and leads to bias that allows editors to reject reliable sources that they either don't like or counter their arguement. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding content forking. Per WP:SPINOFF:"'Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.'"Therefore, because this is a spin-out of the parent article - notability can be justified through sources related to the parent topic. We don't have to provide sources that that is *only* about mobile suits and nothing else.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SPINOUT explicitly states that the spin-out's topic has to pass WP:GNG or a subject specific notability guideline independently. --Anthem of joy (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had the wrong link up, but I don't see what you're saying in either guideline. However, it has been shown that this topic does pass the GNG. Please note that in English coverage of Anime, ANN and NewtypeUSA are about as mainstream as you can get. If both those sources have covered the topic, this should be the end of the discussion. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a how to. If you want to see the policy on when to spinout or not, see WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SO we split out content that isn't sourced? Might as well Delete. If you want to expand on it until it is notable, be my guess, but if this does end up being deleted, you have allt he time to make a special page for it.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:30, 23 May 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.