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


 * 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. Michig (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Plot only description of a topic which is not notable due to the absence of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 13:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I transwikied the full history, all 21.2 megabytes of it, to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_technology  D r e a m Focus  03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This is one of those situations where this is a sub topic of another notable topic. As a work of science fiction, the coverage of the main topic often delves into the scifi elements, which is what the list covers. There may well be reliable sources that provide more direct coverage, but they are hard to find in the sea of fan coverage. In the end, I think Wikipedia is better served keeping this list as a central point to condense merges and redirects about the various techs then it would be by deleting it. Monty  845  17:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is Not Inherited though and the article has been tagged with needing references for over a year now, in addition there is also the WP:NOTPLOT factor that you have not addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one place where a citation needed tag is at. And being tagged for needing references isn't a reason for delete, since most people just ignore those things anyway.  This sort of fictional information can come from the primary source.  Anything that doesn't can be deleted from the article.  Anything that seems too detailed plot wise can be eliminated as well.  No reason to delete the entire article though.   D r e a m Focus  01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues here include WP:Notability as well and this article has zero third party sources to back that up, if you want to put some of the important plot info into the plot on the main article I can see that as being fine but I dont see how this can be a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, if a list is spun out from an article it can inherit notability. This is similar in concept to how once a list of notable alumni from an institution gets too large, we spin it out into a new list. We don't require a section of an article to independently be notable, just as we don't require a spun out list to be. Monty  845  04:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice the word "can", where is the evidence of this inherited notability? Right now the article is just detailed plot information filled with WP:FANCRUFT. Does the article have potential to be anything other than that without third party sources present? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think there is a good likelyhood sources do exist, but have had no luck locating any particularly good ones. I understand the potential problem that fancrut can be, but I don't think its a problem when contained to one list. Now if it was a bunch of articles on the content of the current list, then its a bigger issue. Monty  845  05:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree. Looking over the template for this series, and reading through the article for it, it seems to be a notable work of fiction covering anime, manga, light novels, toys, video games, sequels and spin-offs.  So this will help people understand the science fiction better.   D r e a m Focus  17:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this argument grounded in policy ? Plot-only descriptions of fictional works are explicitly prohibited, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the series. Unless you can find reliable secondary sources which cover the scope of this article, there's no notability. Sure, this article provides the reader with additional information which will improve the reader's understanding of MSG SEED, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think the plot description in the very good article on Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is sufficient for encyclopeadic purposes. Your transwiki was appropriate - keeping this here is not. Claritas § 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As a plot only article with absolutely no reliable and independent sourcing showing significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom. This is getting way too far from what WP is all about. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is the same discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Atlantis (Stargate). Ultimately, the article has no verifiable sources and because its very unlikely to find sources that meet WP:GNG, then the article should be deleted and subsequent information is readily available on other wiki's that do not require the same level of verification. Mkdw talk 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The level of plot detail without regard for sourcing or real-world significance makes this more appropriate for a fan wiki than Wikipedia.  Them From  Space  05:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable; also (just like Atlantis), it is not verifiable. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:18, 24 December 2012 (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.