Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 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. Consensus is to delete because the content consists only of unsourced plot summary and no sources are cited to establish the topic's notability.  Sandstein  00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List of non-notable fictional weapons, does not pass notability criteria for lists. Claritas § 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination) for a very similar case where no sources could be found. --Claritas § 12:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:NLIST - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT because Wikipedia articles aren't summary-only descriptions of fictional works. Needs something to describe out of universe context, namely why this is notable. But without third party sources, there's no way to WP:Verify notability, so this article can never meet our basic guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 25 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; ⋘HueSatLumAlt ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 17:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:LISTN, one way to judge the acceptability of lists is whether the subject as a whole has been covered in sources. I find it very unlikely that the subject of mobile weapons in Mobile Suit Gundam has not been covered in reliable sources, as the series is highly popular and successful, and the mobile weapons are of central importance to both the plot of the series and its popularity among fans.  I understand that sources need to be found, but I would expect they are available and doubt that the nominator has actually looked for them (due to his nominating several related subjects, without seeming to really consider each one).  I would think that checking the sources listed in other articles on the series, such as in the articles Mobile Suit Gundam, Gundam (mobile suit), and White Base, would be a good place to start (but I probably don't have time to check them myself, or even access to any that are non-online sources).  In addition, several of the items in this list have their own articles, and it seems backwards to delete the list while leaving the articles on individual entries in place.  Also, about the policies stated by other people above, I don't believe WP:NOTDIR has any relation to this list (it isn't a directory or any of the other things listed there).  I also don't think WP:NLIST is relevant, since it seems to primarily be about people and doesn't agree with WP:LISTN, presumably because people are a special exception where due to WP:BLP concerns a standalone list of people should generally only contain entries that are each notable individually.  For a subject other than people, each individual entry in the list need not be notable per WP:LISTN.  WP:NOTPLOT is a more valid concern, but I think this list would be acceptable since it is a subtopic of the larger topic of Mobile Suit Gundam, and the larger topic is not covered in an only in-universe fashion.  The mobile weapons are of central importance to the larger topic, so it seems reasonable to list them in a list (similar to how lists of characters in fictional works are regularly kept at AFD, even when they generally cover the subjects in an in-universe fashion). Calathan (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article will not effect the individual entries as there is a template for the series that covers them. I repeat wikipedia is not a fansite (per WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:FANCRUFT) the fact is that the sources are not present and have not been included for years in this article. Notability is also not Inherited here, yes Gundam is notable but there is no evidence that the mobile weapons in the show are for this series other than being plot info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, have you checked for sources? I feel like this is being deleted because everyone is just too lasy to actually look at any of the potential sources.  I know I probably can't complain because I myself am too lasy to look for sources, but this just seems like something that certainly should have sources out there, and it just surprises me that no one here is willing to find them. Calathan (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has been around since 2009, that would give 3 years for editors to look for sources here. Now that does not mean they are not out there, but if there were plenty of sources like you say there are dont you think they would have been found by now? I will do my part and look for sources but please dont call people lazy including yourself, im sure you have done alot of great things for wikipedia just as alot of editors here have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The record shows otherwise. At an AfD for Base 30, about ten editors commented without anyone showing that they had searched for the word "trigesimal" on Google books.  Afd nominators have the primary responsibility to study a topic and prepare the community before investing the time of other people.  AfD nominations among other things must analyze the alternatives to deletion, review the "What links here", and check for articles on other Wikipedias.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOTABILITY, particularly WP:FAILN. Oh yes, and per WP:NOTDIR, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:NLIST too. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to see some proof that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE before nominating this for deletion. My understanding is that Claritas has been banned from making AfDs and they have apparently broken this ban.  If this is the case, rather than discussing this AfD, we should be discussing blocking Claritas.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on both points. I discovered this thread because of a Claritas AfD nomination that is now at DRV.  Claritas' sockpuppets frequently made 2nd, 3rd, and 4th AfD nominations, which are near guarantees of community contention.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found 29 recent AfD nominations, 8 of which were 2nd nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * USer:Claritas is not under any current editing restrictions. Reyk  YO!  22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In requesting the unban, Claritas offered, "...I promise I can produce quality content in the future..." and "I have no interest in intentionally disrupting the project." . In response to a concern about AfD participation, Claritas offered, "I'm here to write."   Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All of Claritas's recent AfDs found merit among a variety of users, unless there's proof he's been using sockpuppetry to vote in his own AfDs, I see no reason to label the actual nominations as disruptive. I also don't see how nominating potentially non-notable articles for deletion would be incompatible with the production of "quality content". On the contrary, I consider cleaning up the huge mess in articles about fiction as paving the way to quality content. Note that I'm not familiar with Claritas's case and am only responding to Unscintillating's words above.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the total absence of secondary sources. A search in GBooks yielded only wikipedia mirrors and a few mere mentions; not enough for a SAL. Fails WP:NLIST WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR WP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT etc.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll give you WP:NOTPLOT, but I thought I made it clear above that WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR don't apply to this article. WP:NLIST is about people, and seems specifically intended with BLP concerns in mind.  That obviously doesn't apply to a list of fictional machines.  WP:NOTDIR is about lists that read like phone books, catalogues, TV listings, or the like, or where there isn't much of an association between the entries.  It is specifically about directories, i.e. pages serving to help someone look up a person/ business/show time/product/etc. in order to contact/be a customer of/watch/purchase/etc. something.  Sorry to complain about that, but it just bugs me whenever I see someone referring to that policy when what they really mean is that they think the subject of the list isn't notable (if you think it fails WP:N then just say so, rather than referring to a policy that is about something else). Calathan (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Amended.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 4 January 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.