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


 * 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) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. The "superweapons" 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. Additionally, "superweapon" is a subjective term and it is difficult to determine whether any individual technology should belong on this list. Anthem 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator has now been blocked by MuZemike as a sock of Caritas, see . 


 * 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) 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates not an indiscriminate collection of information and fails notability. No independent and reliable sources provided. Edison (talk) 00:20, 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) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not policy. WP:BURDEN is, however. Reyk  YO!  23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The editing policy, specifically WP:HANDLE, was apparently not followed by the nominator. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 15 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) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the name of this article is a completely implausible search term. Please assume good faith. --Anthem 07:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:V as no references are found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 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.   Ravenswing  06:44, 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)
 * 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. 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  17:59, 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. A redirect is superfluous because it is an implausible search term. I note that the rudeness to the nominator in some of the comments above is troubling. Neutralitytalk 23:10, 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)
 * I would suggest letting this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Demonstrably the strong consensus is for the non-notability of this subject.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep  At a deletion review of a very closely related article [] of  a previous AfD on this article,  many good references were presented. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable--in fact, if they were, they would normally be justified as separate articles. It's generally appropriate to keep lists like this from cluttering up the article, and their existence provides a good way for quickly redeleting any article on an individual weapon.    DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources that were presented there turned up to be promotional and "produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", thus they can't be used to assess notability on Gundam-related topics, including this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So ... hold on. You're advocating that because "many good references" were supplied in another article - references that you don't attempt to claim have anything to do with this article - this one should automatically be found notable?  That's your argument?  Seriously?   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete According to WP:GNG, the threshold for inclusion of a stand-alone article/list is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", we can easily see that's not the case for this article since it doesn't even have a single source. The topic is thus both non-notable and unverifiable. Besides, the article in itself consists only in the in-universe descriptions of plot elements from a fictional work, thus violating WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. Note: that the nominator is a sockpuppet doesn't magically solve these very serious content issues, which is why, in my opinion, his blocking shouldn't be used as an argument here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 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.