Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS-06 Zaku II


 * 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 keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

MS-06 Zaku II

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a fictional object but includes no sources detailing real world significance. It's basically an overly complicated plot summary and non-free content gallery. Jay32183 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per failure of WP:A. Very "in universe" and lacking in independent sources. Edison 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and strong keep. I have strong, conflicting feelings about this article. On one hand, it's the freaking ZAKU. It's the definitive antagonist mecha of the definitive mecha series. It's not as though it's some minor variant or one-off seen in a spin-off series; there has to be encyclopedia article potential in this subject. Then again, this article is not it. There is nothing useful in this article that could be used for an encyclopedia article; this is an insanely detailed, in-universe fanpage, containing no real-world content but lots of in-universe content written as real-world content. Plus, it's laden with badly sourced (often fan-made) non-free images, to boot. If the article doesn't change, then I think it should probably be deleted, albeit without prejudice against a properly written, properly sourced article. (I'd just rwrite it myself if I could read Japanese.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep The article has significance being a definitive "cannon fodder" Mecha in the real robot Universe The Zaku has been featured even out of the gundam universe The Article needs clean up not deletion.Gundam x105 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

* I'm agree with A Man In Bl♟ck. This is THE ZAKU and it's definity notable. Irony, current quality of article is incredible low for this subject and nobody seem to instrest in make it worth keeping lately. At current state of article, I must regretfully say DELETE. I hope someone would come and improve it quickly so I can change my comment to strong keep, really. L-Zwei 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it got real-world-impact information, complete with reference. Strong Keep (still need to clean up). L-Zwei 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument is weak you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per above arguments. This is definitely a tough one.  Kwsn (Ni!) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If it cannot be improved from its current state, there is no real way to cover it. Though, as it seems that there may be a possible way to improve it, it should be placed into a sandbox for a little while, so people can look for real information. If that doesn't happen eventually, it can just be removed. TTN 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this version is pretty bad, so someone should just start from scratch. TTN 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere... and cleanup/reduce 132.205.44.134 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: WP:IDONTKNOWIT this also apples to the nom and help with the resion to keep and let the project work on this if you read the talk page we are dissusing what needs to be removed and compressed

Comment The insistence on deleting the article instead of improving it in any way is making it difficult for me to assume good faith by the nom, especially given his arguing with every single person who's posted a keep vote. If he truely believes that this article fails current standards, why is he being so vehement? Why doesn't he just let the deletion nom stand on it's own merits? Jtrainor 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC) WP:RUBBISH & WP:JUSTAPOLICY seem to be the noms cards both say this is a weak nom.Gundam x105 05:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I have watched Gundam anime. I said there aren't any sources detailing the real world information. If you can add them, then do it. If you can't, then we need to delete it. Jay32183 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for clean-up-- the subject definitely has real world significance (as it has appeared in many places other than Gundam series), and is nearly as iconic as the Gundam itself. Jtrainor 06:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Without sources, any claim that there is real world significance is meaningless. Find the sources before saying "keep". Jay32183 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have no idea what these say, but here are two google news archive results. John Vandenberg 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC), and a less specific search pulls up more results. John Vandenberg 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to be able to use the sources. A google search alone doesn't mean anything. Jay32183 02:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the most well known parts of the Gundam franchise. Article may need work and sourcing may take a while since this of Japanese origin, but that's not grounds for deletion. Edward321 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Zaku 2 was in every uc production of the gundam franchise up to F91 in a cameo it's prevalence even the series Sargent frog includes zaku references. Even the series jinki extend makes references to gundam one of the models shown in a background shot is a Zaku II like model. the Zaku II also appeared in a tv ad in the uk. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jcogBFPPF7w Gundam x105 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is all that matters here. No sources, no article. Jay32183 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no sources, tag the article as needing them, not just toss it into the wood chipper. Jtrainor 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tags are not magical. You never tag an article and hope stuff happens. If you want to save the article, you need to do some work. Get the sources or every argument to keep is meaningless. Jay32183 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tags are not magical, but it helps if you tag it for a few days asking for references before you propose the article for deletion. It is just a much better way in dealing with things and is a lot more convincing than NOT ask for reference and claims it does not have reference thus it should be deleted. MythSearchertalk 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- The RX-78-2 and the Zaku II are the two Gundam mecha entries which have the most relevance to Wikipedia. Both are cultural icons, both played a strong part in the development of the mecha genre, both are usually what Bandai kicks any new line of merchandise off with. If the article is lacking sources, then a focus should be put on a clean up. I definetly agree that proposing this for deletion is going too far.--HellCat86 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, Delete the overwhelming in-universe stuff, Add references. I will get back to it tonight. MythSearchertalk 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing an unsourced article for deletion is never going too far, since you aren't supposed to start an article without sources to begin with. Jay32183 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a split i say we keep the animated Zaku II models under the article and move the content relating to the MSV zaku models to the MSV article the Manga verients either can stay or be moved to the article on the manga they are from. i removed the two zabi customs since they are just repaints of normal f-types except of story changes like dozal having a larger cockpit Garmas never appers beyond vg units and models with the only upgrade being the two vulcan guns it is not confermed that he had his own model beyond the s tacked on to it's  code.  we have as a source  mark simmons book and a back library of old entertainment bibles but with the zaku and other anime articles sources are hard to get in English.Gundam x105 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Pointing out that you are wrong is part of it. Improvement is impossible, so there's no point in suggesting. The only way you are going to save the article is by adding sources. You probably won't find any though. The article violates multiple policies, so not assuming good faith on deletion is an idication that you do not understand policy or the afd process. Jay32183 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment here is totally not assuming good faith, you just said You probably won't find any though. Look at the article intro, now. I just added in two sources, will add more tomorrow(and delete most of the variation info that is too in-universe), but something that got enough attention to have its own stamps are definitely notable enough. MythSearchertalk 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable sources, they're pictures. The description of the stamp does not say "Zaku" and the artwork doesn't match. Please read WP:WAF and WP:RS. It's not going to be a couple sentences in the lead that saves this. You'll need comments from reliable critics, no fan sites and more than just pop culture references. I'm sure you'll find plenty of sources on Gundam, but not on the MS-06 Zaku II. Jay32183 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously you did not take a close look, on the first source, Zaku is seen as the background, with an even bigger image than the foreground gundam. On the second source, the Char's Zaku takes a dominant role on a whole stamp, and the comment down there specifically states Zaku.  Also, you never see a Gundam specific model competition, yet there are at least 2 Zaku specific competition in Japan, on is held by Hobby Japan Inc. so called OreZaku(My Zaku) another is held by the Dengeki Company, called Zaku Festival where you can only use Zaku to enter, unlike other Gunpla competition where you can use any type of Gundam series plastic model to enter the competition.  Also given, they have MG Zaku 2.0 before a MG Gundam 2.0. (Don't tell me there's a MG Gundam OYW ver. there's also a MG Zaku OYW ver. released) the Zaku is more popular in the modeling community in Japan. MythSearchertalk 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I don't suppose you could add these claims, with sources, to the article, so it can be something other than a page from CIA Worldbook Principality of Zeon? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When I said "Gundam" I was talking about the franchise, not the mecha. Everything you just said there is trivia, trivia, trivia. You need reliable critics commenting on things. Popularity is meaningless. You need multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. You still haven't shown that. Jay32183 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have about the same amount of sourcing that any fictional article has but it is relvent due to the fact it is the second most popular mecha related to the gundam Franchise. it is the " tie fighter " of this series the gundam franchise had a english lange following in the Asian part English speaking world. we have badly sources fictional articles in star wars and star trek objects that are just as bad i find it diffulct to beleve this nom has any merit the zaku survived before due to the fact it was relvent we did get non bandai sources added two asian hobby mags and an stamp series by japan post.  we have evidence to keep this articleGundam x105 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's lots of other stuff that needs to be deleted, which is not a reason to keep. The stamps are not a reliable source. Those are pictures of stamps, there's no content. You cannot source an article without content. There is no way a "keep" can be justified after reading WP:WAF. Jay32183 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that there are no reliable secondary sources is not the same as "delete-wp:nor". There are no reliable secondary sources. Until you get one, "keep" is not a possibility. You're using WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Get some sources or stop wasting your time. Jay32183 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is not a reliable secondary source? Modeling magazines that dates back to before the first Gundam anime aired? Yes, you can keep ignoring the sources presented, yet they are both reliable and verifiable. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. the magazines editors check the modeller's comments before it gets published, they are not a sub-company of Bandai(copyright owner) thus they are a secondary source.  Interviews by reporters of the designers and creators are primary sources, but those are only to make generalizations or original interpretive in the article for now, and thus is all follows WP:RS and WP:NOR.  Face it, Modeling magazines and anime magazines like Dengeki Hobby, Hobby Japan, Newtype magazine, Animec are authoritative, reliable and appropriate secondary sources for these kind of topics. MythSearchertalk 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, stamps issued by a national body are a real sign of notability. In 1000 years, people will ask about the image on the stamp. John Vandenberg 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are zero reliable secondary sources. A picture of a stamp is not a source. Jay32183 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Im not sure whether it would be classed as secondary, but this is definitely a reliable and independent source, being produced by Japan Philatelic Society.  Even this is reliable, if not independent.  wrt to postage stamps, we need to ask ourselves what is the fact that is being communicated, and what verification would be required.  The stamps existance and image are what is being used in the article, and we have very reliable sources; I think that whether they are "secondary" or not is of questionable importance. John Vandenberg 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, the problem here is that the nom denies him/herself being wrong. The post office site is a perfect source of a stamp is a real one, and having featured itself on a stamp is definitely notable enough topic to be listed in wikipedia.  BTW, I have done some work on the article. MythSearchertalk 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, after seeing how the article developed over the last days and the fact that it is an important suit in the UC it should stay. Diabound 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep- the RX-whatever and this gundam are the only two I can see as having bullet-proof notability. It does need to be cleaned up. David Fuchs 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The main problem with the article, in my opinion, is that there is/was far too much focus on the variants created after the original series, and not enough on the significance of the original Zaku design to pop culture, or its significance to the plot, even. I noticed that L-Zwei and others have been working on adding something to rectify this, so it's a start.  If most of the non-notable variants were removed and that particular section was trimmed down by a significant margin, the article wouldn't be such a mess. Maikeru 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Maikeru. Skolympus 16:36, 28 June 2007 (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.