Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn 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. Secret account 20:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn mobile weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Mobile suits are an integral part of all mecha series, and lists like these could be compared to lists of characters for other other works of fiction. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is vastly different from a character list. It carries no encyclopedic value to general readers, and caters only to people seeking in-depth knowledge best left to Wikia. Proper character lists can be used to reference information that is necessary to understand certain parts of the plot, but would otherwise be too bloated for the plot summary. On the other hand, the variation of the robots' armor or the specifics of their weaponry is something that the general reader does not need to understand. At most, one sentence on the character's entry stating "[Character] pilots X machine with defining attributes Y and Z." is all that is really needed. TTN (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notability in-universe list. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with DZ and TTN.  This is a non-notable list of in-universe plot elements.  It should be on Wikia and not Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Part of what attracts people to Gundam is the technological bits of it (not just "certain parts of the plot"), which does carry encyclopedic value. Sometimes Gundam goes so in-depth with its technology it cannot fit into character descriptions. Yapool Seijin (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete- It's an unsourced list of trivia, written in an in-universe style. It fails WP:V, WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. It is not good enough to say "Keep I like it" or "The fiction goes into lots of detail so we need to as well". Reyk  YO!  02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. You want in-universe style? The Wikia articles themselves are in-universe (quite atrocious too) and I've made much effort to clean up everything here as out of universe.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep For reasons already given. It also passes WP:FICT which states that the list elements do not need to be individually notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, and even then, note the italicized "may" and suggestion to check actual guidelines. There is no free pass for something like this, and per WP:LISTN, the group of items does need to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay seems to be supported by WP:LC, WP:SALAT and WP:CSC item 2. Basically, the group of items is notable if it was acceptable to include the list in the main article which passed WP:GNG.  Claiming that it becomes non-notable because the MOS required it to be broken out into a separate article makes little sense.  So which is it?  Stuff it back along with List of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn characters into the main article thereby making that article way too long or leave it broken out per the MOS?  I guess I better grab a copy so I can shoe horn it back into the main article if it gets deleted, but I don't see how that in anyway improves Wikipedia over the current state. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a copy on-wiki, but please do not copy articles currently at AfD, per the fifth/last item under WP:Guide to deletion. If the article is deleted, it may be restored under a redirect or userfied by asking the closing admin, WP:Requests for undeletion, or (in contentious cases) WP:Deletion review. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. I copied it to my PC so I could merge it into the main article if needed.  I don't like having to ask an administrator to restore a deleted article to my sandbox.  Sorry I was not clear. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. You will need attribution to reuse the page text on Wikipedia; a list of authors is sufficient, but full page history is preferred. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I get a copy the history, but how do I get that integrated into the main article history? Given that maybe four non-IP editors (including the splitting editor) have edited it since (and some of them before) it was split from the main article, would it be enough to give attribution to them in the merge edit? Or would be it be okay to simply reverse the spitting edit so that no one will have edited the material since the split. I see nothing disallowing this last course of action.  In any case, I wasn't planning to take any action until this process ended.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Either of those would be acceptable. The August 2010 splits are here in the history. WP:Merge and delete has more about attribution in the edit summary. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete it is written in-universe, and it would be next to impossible to source it with verifiable third-party sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:INUNIVERSE is a style guideline. It is not a sufficient reason for deletion if a minor ce can fix the issue. Per WP:CSC it needs no cites proving notability of the list members. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Merge/copy/save the content for Wikia, it can be expanded there with no limitations. -- GreenC  17:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This does not pass the general notability guideline. All other essays and guidelines are secondary in this regard. The weapons themselves are not the subject of critical commentary by reliable third party sources. If there is coverage of one or two suits or weapons, that can be placed in the main article, or as part of the list of characters article.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to pass GNG per WP:CSC and WP:SALAT. NO guideline (or essay) including GNG is always primary, PERIOD, unless it is dealing with BLP or the like. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that lists don't have to pass the GNG from a reading of CSC and SALAT. I certainly don't see that. By the way, this article falls short of the standard at CSC as well, by a good deal.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reading of CSC at all. WP:CSC #2 clearly says that none of the list members has to be notable. I would say that by definition that a list of non-notable items would fail to pass GNG, but yet WP:CSC clearly permits such a list. The issue is whether or not the subject of the list (i.e., the main article of which the list is a 'sub' article) is notable. Given that the main article appears to pass GNG, then the sub article list passes GNG by definition as long as the list is suitable to be included in the main article (i.e., the list only exists in order to reduce the size of the GNG main article). I believe that the essay WP:LC explains the reasoning for allowing a list of non-notable items (i.e., not GNG in and of itself) separate from the main GNG article in order to reduce the size of the GNG article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PLOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (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.