Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits


 * 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   redirect to SD Gundam G Generation. The arguments relating to OR an Notability concerns (among others) outweigh the concerns of the procedural validity of the AFD.  MBisanz  talk 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In-universe fancruft. Largely unverifiable. Non-notable. Contested prod. BradV 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't the community already have this discussion here and here? Why renominate, let alone prod it?--chaser - t 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's in universe! The title should have been a hint. It is entirely acceptable to have in-universe material around as long as it a valid spin off of the main article or a major subject of the fictional world. Gundam pretty much relies on the suits. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't; the strongest sentiment expressed in the recent notability RfC is that "all spinoffs are notable" was flatly rejected. If the subject relies on these suits so much, it should be trivial to identify reliable sources which deal with them. That hasn't happened. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not quite the same as that -- the majority of the show takes place in the suits. Gundam for all intents and purposes basically is the suits. They're called Gundams, and are what the name of the franchise is derived from. Glass  Cobra  11:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's neither here nor there. It is illogical to reason that because the franchise is about the suits that the suits are automatically notable because the franchise is. If no reliable third-party sources devote non-trivial coverage to individual instances of the suits, then an article which takes those instances as its subject fails to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy procedural close as dealt with a month ago, wait until January to renominate. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — entirely game guide material and unverifiable original research. The result of the two AFDs listed was that they were merged here, which it seems like they have been. The problems remain as before, so bringing up the other AFDs are not moot in this case. It's a case of merges that have been executed to improve another article that have failed its goals, hence the AFD here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add that this is what happens when said unverifiable original research is merged into another article with similar problems — nothing gets accomplished. It's akin to pouring chocolate syrup on dog poo-poo to try to make it taste good. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The references do not appear to be reliable enough to be used as a source and most of the material in the article is copied from it anyway. I would recommend using the site as an external link instead. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as original research and in-universe gamecruft. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This list is a perfectly suitable place for the details of this highly notable fictional franchise. I would disagree with a speedy close, but it seems distinctly silly to me to do anything with this other than keep when the community has already consented to have other articles merged into this. A PROD was also an exceedingly inappropriate way to try to deal with this. Trimming can be worked out on the article's talk page. Glass  Cobra  11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After reconsideration and noticing similar viewpoints from others participating in this discussion, I will remove my objection to a speedy close, and reinforce my initial notion about the prematurity and inappropriateness of this AfD. Glass  Cobra  10:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or at least stubbify just to to label of these suits (and move to broader list name) - Appears to be referenced to a fan site. And "G-Generation F mobile suits" -- is there some better-suited/other list that isn't so specific? Please tell me we don't have separate A-, B-, C-, x-generation lists floating around. --EEMIV (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —--EEMIV (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: Whatever "relevant" information there is to whatever "list of Gundam characters" article there is. Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's this article. Several others have already been merged into this one. Glass  Cobra  10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge/redirect. I started the merge based on the closure of two AfDs to help out, as sometimes these things close as merge and no one actually goes ahead and merges (some just redirect without merging, sometimes no one does anything) but as Gundams are not really my cup of tea aside from merging the content I am not really able to accomplish much else in the way of actual referencing and this particular article is not a priority to me.  I placed a rescue template on it in the hopes that someone with greater knowledge or who may have Gundam publications without online archives can maybe accomplish more.  Maybe speedy close due to nominations for the two merged articles being only a short time ago.  Maybe redirect to some other Gundam article as they do not seem to be completely made up and unless I have strong suspicions otherwise I like to assume good faith with our article creators.  Yet, although this time I would actually agree that sourcing is a bit more difficult than usual here, I cannot agree with an outright delete on the grounds WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN bases per Do not call things cruft.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insalvageably in-universe. There isn't enough coverage of any of these subjects in reliable sources from a real-world perspective to warrant even a list article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In-universe, non-notable cruft. The "sources" are a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Because Wikipedia is not game guide: SD Gundam is a game without canonic anime or manga. Transwiki to Gundam Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. The subjects of the article lack substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, so fails notability. Edison (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Close and Keep There was a discussion here a month ago to merge the individual articles into here. The closure of that discussion was authority for the merge, and for this article. To try a month later to remove the article justifies the statements I have earlier made that merger proposals from opponents of this content are sometimes just devices to remove the content altogether when there would not be consensus for that. I see a proposal above to merge to List of Gundram characters. If done, i expect that the article will in turn be nominated. Glass Cobra is perfectly right about the inappropriate nature of this AfD. DGG (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it is not equally a case of gaming the system to argue that a group of articles which fail WP:N can somehow acquire notability if only they are merged into a list. This appears to be the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete In-universe:  has no application to this world, and hasn't been written about by scholars of this world.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works."  This article about fiction is in no way encyclopedic, and no sources are possible to find to assert that a "list of SD Gundamm G-Generation F mobile suits" has any reception, impact, or significance to the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and close We had this discussion less than a month ago -- move on, people. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No notability as it's not inherented from parents. I'd also like to echo one of the other remarks - "list of" really means = dumping ground for any old shite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability isn't additive or inherited--specifically, if a dozen articles with no sources are merged into one, that article still has no sources. The subjects of this list are not covered in significant detail by third party sources.  Further, the specificity and parochial nature of these articles (and the list formed from them) almost entirely precludes the possibility that they will meet WP:NOT (As noted variously above). Protonk (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Farix (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to SD Gundam G Generation, which itself is in need of cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Farix. There's like two paragraphs on ifnormation here, just move the information into a section somewhere else instead of deleting it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Chaser and Farix.  This decision was already made.  If the merge hasn't happened yet, you don't AfD it just to get it going, you bug the people that were supposed to perform the merge. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my usual practice on speedy renominations. I have no doubt that everything has been done with honorable intentions, but I do read the prior AfD discussions as authorizing this article, and I think editors need to be given a good faith opportunity to work on these lists while we try to sort out how we will deal with these lists. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:07, 30 November 2008 (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.