Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ignoring the speedy keeps, which are unapplicable in this case (a DRV-based procedural nomination is not a speedy keep argument), and some other opinions not based in policies or guidelines, we are left with a discussion on the available sources, which are in the end either not independent, or not indepth. If sources like the first two have to be counted among the best of them, then there is a clear lack of notability, as indicated by a number of editors in this (and previous) discussions. Fram (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources proposed in DrV

 * 1)  (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
 * 2)  (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
 * 3)  (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
 * 4)  (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
 * 5)  (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
 * 6)  (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
 * 7)  (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
 * 8)  (Features Destiny Gundam)
 * 9)  (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
 * 10)  (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
 * 11)  (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
 * 12) Otona no Gundam by Nikkei Business Publications, analyzing the business model and methods used by different series.
 * 13) Great Mechanics 7
 * 14) 9
 * 15) 11 specials on Gundam SEED mecha
 * 16) 16 special on SEED-D, featuring Zaku Warrior, an elite Mook
 * 17) 17
 * 18) 18 specials on SEED-D
 * 19) 12 special on SEED MSV(mobile suit variations)
 * 20) 14 Cosmic Era MS Style.(Cosmic Era is the fictional timeline in SEED series)
 * 21) Analyzing all up to date Gundam designs and strategy including SEED ones
 * 22) section "Atmospheric reentry, from First to SEED, SF setting and strategy
 * Just relisting the sources, since people !vote delete seemed to have just read the article and did not go into the DrV. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 16 special on SEED-D, featuring Zaku Warrior, an elite Mook
 * 2) 17
 * 3) 18 specials on SEED-D
 * 4) 12 special on SEED MSV(mobile suit variations)
 * 5) 14 Cosmic Era MS Style.(Cosmic Era is the fictional timeline in SEED series)
 * 6) Analyzing all up to date Gundam designs and strategy including SEED ones
 * 7) section "Atmospheric reentry, from First to SEED, SF setting and strategy
 * Just relisting the sources, since people !vote delete seemed to have just read the article and did not go into the DrV. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Keep per my comments in the previous AfD along with the sources found since then. I have completely reorganized the articles to present it more in an out of universe point of view as well as started a reception section using some of the sources. While individual entries will need to be rewritten, those are a cleanup issues. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Smerge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. We have something in excess of 350 articles about this anime franchise, and something in excess of 50 lists; our coverage is bloated and it would be hard for an inexperienced end-user to find content in among so much indiscriminate material.  We need to cut down, and smerging lists like this one and List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile weapons back to the main List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons would be a good start.— S Marshall  T/C 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons focuses on the the original series. Creating a list that covers "everything" would be far too broad and will not adequately cover the topic for at least 7 different incarnations of the Gundam franchises. It would be like trying to combine all superheros into one list. Also having the lists divided by series makes the lists more manageable and allows readers to focus on just an individual series or timeline. In fact, the general number of articles and lists isn't a problem. On top of that, there are only 12 lists covering the mobile weapons for 14 different series. I also believe that the "350 articles" is heavily inflated because many of the articles appear to be counted 3 or 4 times as they are located in multiple categories as well as including media files into the count. While we should merge most of the remaining articles on individual mecha and character into lists, eliminating the lists won't reduce the perceived "over coverage". To the contrary, it only makes consolidating the rest of the articles that much more difficult. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried counting the actual number of articles in the Gundam category and all its subcategories, and got a count of 259 unique articles (not counting files). For comparison, Anime News Network lists about 115 anime and manga in the Gundam franchise, and there are also dozens of Gundam video games and other related products.  While probably some of the Gundam articles on Wikipedia should be merged or deleted, I don't think the total number of articles we have is unreasonable given the size of the franchise. Calathan (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As I said in the deletion review, List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons is only a list for the one show Mobile Suit Gundam, and there is not a main list for the franchise. Your suggestion would not be merging a sub-list back to a main list, but creating a new list from lists that currently have completely separate scope.  I strongly oppose merging this list with that one.  It is a poor organization of the topic to group objects from two shows that aren't plot related, were produced more than two decades apart, and which would have had significant differences in production and marketing.  Either the mobile weapons from Gundam SEED are notable enough to recieve coverage in Wikipedia or they aren't, and if they are then there is no policy-based reason to not have them in their own article.  You seem to want to artificially reduce the number of articles on the subject when there is no policy or guideline that suggests a limit to the number of articles.  There simply is no reason why one franchise can't have a large number of articles as long as the subject of each of those articles in individually notable.  As the Gundam franchise has been running for more than 30 years and has regularly been producing new TV shows, movies, and other notable subjects, there is no reason to expect it not to have a large number of subjects that could each support an individual article. Furthermore, the merge you suggest would create a list that is too long, and I personally think it would be more confusing than the current organization (again, because the different series aren't plot related and were produced separately many years apart). Calathan (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or perhaps merge with Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. I think the sources are probably good enough to support an stand-alone list, but even if they are not, I think that the mobile weapons are a significant enough part of the series that they should at least have coverage in the main articles.  The mobile weapons are part of the main marketing for Gundam, and sales of models and other goods based on the mobile weapons are a large part of how the franchise makes its money.  The main topics of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny are certainly notable, and I don't think we can have adequate coverage of those subjects without covering the mobile weapons somewhere (either in a stand-alone list or in the parent articles). Calathan (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1, "The nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion...". The discussion above indicates that the issue is a structural or organisational one, requiring ordinary editing rather than deletion.  The matter should therefore be discussed on the articles' talk page(s) rather than here.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That speedy keep criterion certainly doesn't apply to an AFD that was relisted due to a deletion review. Calathan (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a relist, the first AfD nomination has been reverted for being a sockpuppet. Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a relist, and it had nothing to do with a sockpuppet, please read Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * strong delete All of the sources of this article are in-universe only, for why this is a problem see my essay at wp:OOUOnly. Also the argument that this meets WP:SK#1 is spurious, this is being relisted as a procedural matter.  If every time a nominator procedurally renominated an article per a deletion review it was kept as WP:SK#1 then there would be literally no purpose at all to having DRV.  HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not say that THEM animne reviews, and Newtype USA are in universe sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely no out-of-universe context or notability. --Crusio (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep Plenty of independent, reliable sources. That argument had some strength in the previous AfD, and applies all the more so with the new sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which are, as established there, not independent at all.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Reply to Folken on the DrV, The magazine you linked to is not a magazine, it is a series of books published by Futabasha, called the Common Knowledge of..., which also includes other topics like gemstones and the Edo period. This particular one is Common Knowledge of Gunpla it does give out a 1/288 model, yet it is a gift, not a product.  The book talks about the history of Gunpla, which is actually a very prominent hobby in Japan, in which the hobby magazine, Hobby Japan, which was first published 10 years before First Gundam have significant coverage of it per issue.  Bandai has its own catalogs and history books, and multiple other companies also does the same thing, it is very reasonable that all businesses want to take a bite out of something that can make money, that is why there are dozens of publishers publishing thousands of Gundam related books, including Gakken, a publisher that published mainly educational products, also published at least two books on the One Year War, which is not much more than plot summary other than some fictional strategy analysis.  Giving out gifts along with books are also very common in Japan, Like this one it would be entirely funny if this particular issue made Gakken a complete COI that anything it publishes cannot give notability to the Newton telescope because it produces Newton telescopes(not that it needed any, but you get my point).  Per WP:GNG:  "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4], and [4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.  First, I must seek your consensus that affiliation does not equal to publication of related material, because nothing can have sources since all sources are basically a direct publication of relate material.  Also, COI cannot be a simple market driven relationship, meaning a scientific journal needs scientific breakthrough to continue publication, so it is pretty heavily related to the market and will have to publish related material for its business survival.  Every other major publishers, if not all, in Japan had publications related to Gundam, it triggered an anime boom after all, so if we follow your method, Gundam cannot be notable due to all sources will be affiliated.  Great Mechanics is not a self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiography or press release, it is also not work produced by the subject and the company is producing prominently other publications not related thus the connection is very weak. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  02:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So Futabasha has a history of diverse Gundam-related publications directly advertised on the copyright holders' website, including one in which they offer officially-sanctionned commercial products. Sorry but all these elements, the regularity with which they're associated with the name "Gundam" (and particularly the Gundam figure, which they absolutely couldn't give without approval), in my opinion, tend to show they are not independent but rather a part of the vast Gundam promotional campaign (as I said earlier, any copyright holder can pay a third party editor to publish about a specific topic, and any editor can pay a copyright holder to make money on a topic) and you've provided nothing that would clear Futabasha of any suspicion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am seeing more sources added to the list as time goes on, the article is stil lin very bad shape but it does okay WP:Notability and WP:V wise, I feel with these references and more it can be fixed up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep This is supported in part by WP:SK#1, "The nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion..." and further by WP:Banning policy.  The first AfD nomination was by a sockpuppet, so it is not correct to call this a relist.  There were no delete !votes when the Speedy Keep was identified.  What we have now is two AfDs and zero nominations.  See also:User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/5 for the nominator's view about banning policy.  The issues here belong at the talk page of the article anyway.  The argument that this is plot-only falls just by reading the article.  I glanced at one of the references provided above (this one), which cannot be dismissed by the wp:vaguewave claims "absolutely no notability" and "all the sources are in-universe only".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to go that way, I can close this AfD, change the DRV close to deletion endorsed by default instead, and redelete the article. Somehow I doubt that's the way you want to go.... T. Canens (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see this here anyway, there didn't seem to be a consensus to overturn. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't. First four bolded words in the DRV close. T. Canens (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I acknowledge the efforts, since the last nomination, of several contributors to provide source and to try to include out of universe content, but unfortunately this deletion review established that all these source are either insignificant (for some) or not independent (for the majority, which are commercial publications under direct contract with the copyright holders for the Gundam series), thus the criteria for inclusion are still not met. Let's not forget the obvious lack of balance between in-universe and out-of-universe content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked a number of people at the DrV, but could you address the problem you have with source 21? Hobit (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been discussing with Mythsearcher. Great Mechanics is a publication that is advertised on the official Gundam website, and thepublisher, Futabasha, has commercial links with the Gundam copyright holders since they've distributed some Gundam models in one of their magazine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. To the first, I don't think if X advertises with company Y that means either X or Y's coverage of each is somehow tainted.  And selling a model with their own publication?  Eh.  That doesn't seem like that a close relationship, more like the NYT and burger king. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two basic arguments for deletion that I see. #1 is GNG.  Is there non-trivial coverage of this topic by independent reliable sources?  I believe 1, 2, 16, 17 and especially 21 (a whole issue of a magazine?) are all above that bar.  The GNG would seem to be trivially met, though I fully admit I don't know a huge amount about the topic.  Reason #2 for deletion would be WP:PLOT (or a lack of "out of universe material".  If you believe that we must have out-of-universe material to have an article I think the case being made is fairly strong.  I don't think WP:PLOT can, or should be read that way.  Certainly I disagree with that reading.  We shouldn't have just plot summary, but when third-parties have covered material like this we _should_ cover the topic, as we should for any notable topic.  Also, those !voting for a speedy keep need to realize no such argument will hold water here and either strike or update their !votes.  Hobit (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviews in ANN that barely mention anything about the topic don't qualify as "significant coverage", and articles published by a company that owns some of the Gundam rights (Kadokawa) are not independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources cited address in detail Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, but not the Mobile Suits themselves, which when mentioned are mostly passing mentions and/or in-universe. There are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I do not see evidence that that they meet the general notability guideline or that there are reliable sources for the individual weapons to presume that they should have a stand-alone list, as there are no sources that provide reception, significance or real-world perspective. Even if one tries to ignore the independent of the subject problem with the sources mentioned by Folken de Fanel, for notability purposes all the Newtype USA sources count as only one source because they are from the same publisher. The books cited in Amazon Japan are not even direct mentions and in no way show notability for the fictional weapons, as they are mostly tertiary sources that compile information but do not give objective evidence of notability or they are for the whole franchise. The only ones that I see as solid evidence for notability purposes are Anime News Network and T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews, and both of them do not treat the fictional weapons as a subject, but as part of the plot of the series. In fact, checking the reception section and the sources, they merely praises the overall mechanical design in the series, nothing to presume that the Mobile Suits are notable on their own or that it justifies to have a stand-alone list about them. Furthermore, the sources only serve to establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. As mentioned before, the reception section is not even about the mobile suits and should be covered in the series articles. The rest of the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work taken with original research by synthesis at best, so the article also falls into what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Knowing the mobile weapons in detail (even the notable ones plot-wise) is not necessary to understand the plot of 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 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 and notability is not inherited. The article is an unjustified content fork more related to a complete exposition of all possible details, so I don't see a valid reason to keep the article. Jfgslo (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm kind of reiterating what I've already said above, but I want to make it clear that I think even if this isn't kept as a standalone article, that at the least some content from this article should be merged to the parent articles Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. The mobile suits are such an important part of the franchise, both in terms of the in-world plot and the real-world appeal, marketing, and profitability of the series, that I don't think the topic of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED could be adequately covered without at least some coverage of the mobile suits.  I think many of the delete votes are incorrectly discounting that some of the content from this article could be used in other articles even if this is not kept as a stand alone list.  I also want to point out that another AFD (Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger) recently concluded with other articles being redirected to this list, and a couple articles being tagged for a merge to this list.  The articles being merged in particular contain a lot of real world information, some of which is sourced.  I'm not sure what would happen to that information if this article is deleted before the merger occurs, but I think it would be incorrect to delete that content based on this AFD (both since the other AFD already indicated that content should be merged, and because the people responding to this AFD aren't necessarily aware that those articles exist and are slated to be merged).  I also want to comment that I still disagree with Folken de Fanel that merely being published by a company that also published spin-offs from the franchise would necessarily make a magazine's coverage of the franchise non-independant (since he has been suggesting that it was "established" at the deletion review that the sources were non-independant, when in fact that seemed to be one of the main issues of disagreement at the deletion review that resulted in there being no consensus).  I also strongly disagree with the statement that giving away some models for a series makes someone no longer independent from that series, as that is no different than advertising.  The suggestion that even the most minor of buisiness relationship would make someone non-independant would imply that every major newspaper and magazine is no longer independent from anyone that has ever run an advertisement in that publication, which I certainly don't think is the case.  Calathan (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you can't just "disagree" that Kadokawa and their Newtype magazine are not independent about Gundam. Kadokawa is one of the copyright holders for the Gundam franchise and they publish an official manga. WP:GNG states that "independent" means that it "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", Kadokawa are affiliated with the subject, so they're not independent, period. Disagree if you want, but if you're not willing to explain precisely why Kadokawa would be independent from the Gundam franchise, then your claims mean absolutely nothing. WP:GNG is clear on that point, and trying to depreciate the quality of Kadokawa's Gundam manga by labelling it "spin-off" is not a good-faith argument. We don't care whether Mobile Suit Gundam: The Origin is good enough for you. And concerning Futabasha, they published various official Gundam magazines, and yes, that they give away official Gundam models is a proof they're not independent. I don't remember reading in WP:GNG that the level of independence required would vary depending on how it suits the supporters of an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Folken de Fanel, I'm honestly confused and hurt by your comments. Isn't the anime the main part of the Gundam franchise, and all the other parts spin-offs?  I thought that was obvious and non-controversial.  It has nothing to do with quality or anything like that, just that the Gundam is at its core an anime franchise.  I don't understand how you can accuse me of bad faith for that.  I think you need to remember to remain civil about this, and that just because we disagree doesn't mean that one of us is acting in bad faith.
 * About things being independent from one another, I want to clarify that I disagree with you strongly as a general point about how Wikipedia does work and should work, and also disagree with you to a lesser degree about Newtype USA, but that I did not mean to be commenting about Futabasha, since I know nothing about it. To try to better explain why I disagree with your comments as they generally apply to Wikipedia, let me give an example . . . I personally would say that CNN is an independent source for news on DC Comics, even though they are both owned by the same parent company, since CNN editors are paid to be impartial and they are relatively separate from DC Comics.  I could certainly understand, however, if some Wikipedia editors would disagree, since they are still owned by the same parent company.  I would also say that CNN is an independent source for news on McDonald's, even though McDonald's has given away toys based on DC Comics characters, as there is such a minor connection between CNN and McDonald's that I don't think they could be considered non-independent.  I think that most, but not necessarily all, Wikipedia editors would agree that CNN is an independent source for news on McDonald's.  Whether or not it was your intention, your comments suggest to me that you would not only not find CNN to be a independent source for news on DC Comics, but also not an independent source for news on McDonald's, or for news on any company that has every advertised on CNN.com, or for news on anyone who has ever acted in a Batman film, etc., since all those things have some sort of business relationship with CNN or their parent company, Time Warner.  Since I think CNN should be considered an independent news source on some of those things, and would be considered an independent source for some of those things by most Wikipedia editors, I disagree strongly with what I see as the implications of your statements for what should and should not be considered independent.  I feel very strongly that the statements in the GNG were not meant to eliminate all sources that have any sort of business relationship, however minor, from being independent, as that would basically eliminate every major news source or publication from being an independent source for almost anything.  I also disagree that what is or is not idependent is cut and dry or always obvious, and think that there will be many borderline cases that need to be discussed individually.  I certainly think it is reasonable for different editors to disagree over the borderline cases, or even to disagree which cases are borderline.
 * To get back to the sources for this particular AFD, as I have said previously, I think Newtype USA can be considered independent since the people working directly on it are employees of ADV, not Kadowaka, that they are mainly covering a part of the franchise that was not made by Kadokawa, that ADV has claimed the people working on it would be independent from any company including ADV itself, and that Newtype in general publishes coverage on anime from many companies, suggesting that it isn't just a publicity source for one company. I do think that the case is borderline, and think you have presented some solid arguements for it not being independent, but still disagree on that point.  Again, that doesn't mean that one of us is distorting the facts or acting in bad faith, but merely that we disagree on this particular point. Calathan (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Calathan, I think the problem here is that you obviously don't agree with a specific point of WP:GNG, and we may argue for weeks without it leading anywhere. "Votes" in AfDs have to be based on existing policies, not on what we wish were the policies. An AfD is not the place where we come up with new policies to allow articles we wish to keep, but where we check if an article complies with existing policies. WP:GNG is pretty clear in that it excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", and Kadokawa/Nextype is really obviously in that situation. It's not up to you to determine the levels of affiliation that will be accepted according to how it suits the sources you want to include. And I think you'll agree with me that nothing good will ever come out of our discussion, since you're advocating for an original and unsupported interpretation of a policy while I'm just going by what is written there. We're just not talking about the same thing, and Wikipedia talk:Notability seems more appropriate for what you have to say. I'll just correct a factual mistake about Newtype USA. It's something I already told you in WP:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6 and which you avoided to comment: "As for Newtype USA, it is (well, was) mostly a translation of the original japanese articles, and Kadokawa remains one of the copyright holders even for the US publication. That ADV printed the translations doesn't change anything, the articles listed here are still originally from Kadokawa."Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Folken, I have to tell you that the official gundam website advertise for magazines that are not even that related to their products, they simply put up news for Model Graphix, Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan. Having one or two collaboration projects does not necessarily mean they are affiliated.  Just like Calathan said, an advertisement on a magazine is hardly an affiliation.  Futabasha does not publish any official Gundam magazines, if you think listing it on the official website means it is an official magazine, the above 3 magazines and Great Mechanics all have much more other topics than Gundam.  Also, having it on the Gundam website is very simple, if you are selling a product, and someone writes about it, you would like to show it on your own company site to let people know how popular/notable your product is.  Now, if you want to claim affiliation, I can agree with you on Kodakawa since they do publish an official monthly manga magazine for Gundam, and having a good marketing strategy that promote Gundam can help them earn more money since they continuously publishes such magazines.  But for Futabasha, their publications are much more one off, Gundam having a great popularity does not mean they get a chunk out of it, instead, they are just publishing random things that can get people interest in, and Gundam happens to be one of them.  It is like a sports magazine interviewing the champion because people want to read about that, not because they try to be affiliated with the champion and hire the champion to sell their magazine or was paid by the champion to advertise him. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Having one or two collaboration projects does not necessarily mean they are affiliated." -> Yes it does. It's not up to just one or two editors to define the accepted levels of affiliation according to how it will suit their attempt to keep an article. You're free to take that issue up with Wikipedia talk:Notability, but I won't discuss it any longer, WP:GNG excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", I'm going to stick to that. "Futabasha does not publish any official Gundam magazines": Yes they do. First one is here (the one in which they give a figure model), then I've just discovered this, officially copyrighted to Sunrise. So yes, now we have definite and undisputable proof that Futabasha is part of the Gundam promotional campain.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- in my opinion consensus to delete was reached at the previous AfD, despite the sockiness of the nominator. Since there was no consensus to overturn it at the DrV, I think the original close should stand. Reyk  YO!  08:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please notice the reason of the closing admin of the first nomination claimed that there are no address of notability in verifiable sources as the main deletion consensus, yet there are only 4 sources in that nomination, and the DrV increased the number of sources to 30, in which at least 1 is never refuted by anyone with a delete !vote, the Endorse !votes in the DrV have a few that come and go, without even stating whose view they supported and those are pretty much before anyone tried to refute the later added sources. One of them did not only make personal attacks, but also completely ignores the direct claim of sources being not plot, which I must address the closing admin that this is a very obvious tendency of failure to engage in discussion and continued to give WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasonings just to make a WP:POINT.  Folken tried to refute the later sources, which I honoured, since he is pretty much the one and only who do so. Nevermind s/he ignored the Nikkei source, since I can also agree if only 1 single independent source is not an indication of notability, if it is the only independent source. S/he tried to do it by relating the different companies by single publications, in which Calathan gave a good reply up there.  Other delete !voters still failed to grasp that the sources listed here, at least the last 11, is NOT plot summary.  Jfgslo tried to merge different sources into one, stating they are by the same publisher, which is rather strange, different issue of the same magazine can have different topics, which led to different sources, merging them and saying they are all but only one is not reflecting any known policy.  Stating the amazon links are not direct mention is only like stating I cannot cite the magazine Science in any science article, since the cover of it is not direct mention.  Things have changed significantly during the DrV, stating the original close should stand is by no means a good argument.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The series is about the mobile suits. This is like a character or enemies list for a notable series.   D r e a m Focus  16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lists have to comply to WP:GNG. This is not the case for this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no out-of-universe, independent sources at all. So this clearly fails WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, you closed Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger with an indication to merge two articles into the one being discussed here, as those articles had sources. Do you also think those sources are unacceptable (i.e. did you perhaps close that AFD based on the consensus there, but not personally agree with that consensus)?  If you did find those articles sufficiently sourced to merge to this one, why can't this article exist with large sections merged from those articles and only a brief list of the other mobile suits?  If those articles aren't merged here, then should they be merged to the main Gundam SEED and Gundam SEED Destiny articles?  Also, I still haven't seen any good reason from anyone why parts of this list couldn't be merged (in a condensed form) to each of the articles on the anime and manga where the mobile suits appear.  Those articles certainly have independent, out of world sources, and even if you feel the sources for this article aren't independent, I don't see why they couldn't be used to support small sections in other articles that already have enough sources to pass the GNG. Calathan (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, can you at least state whose view you agreed to that there are no out of universe and independent sources? Or whose view you disagreed that the above listed sources are not independent? I understand that different people have different POV, but AfDs are not votes, and if you really want to build consensus, you at least need to give your own view, instead of a simple denial, which make it impossible to discuss.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all articles and lists need to meet the general notability guideline. WP:FICT says that "until there is a successful proposal to treat fiction in a specialized way, consult other policies and guidelines for guidance on a wide range of topics, including fiction." Don't just make up guidelines without showing real support. This article is mainly in-universe and primary coverage that fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG's request for third-party information about significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails general notability guideline --rogerd (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I comment on all these bad practise of not reading the discussion above? Shooterwalker, how the article is currently like have no bearing in if it is notable or not, it is only related to how much independent source people can find. You can have a complete trash article with no citation yet it can have multiple 3rd party reliable, verifiable sources to prove its notability.  Rogerd, I have trouble seeing your argument with a list of sources up there, short and single visit vote seem so bad faith.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  04:43, 29 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.