Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shin Matsunaga


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @151  · 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shin Matsunaga

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

Non-notable character. Only appears in a technical manual, but is never in any of the televisions series, films, OVAs, or novels. The assertion that this character appeared in an episode of Gundam Evolved is purely based on fan speculation and is not based on any reliable source. Has no affect on the series's plot line. Inappropriate for merger. Farix (Talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Farix (Talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Err... He appearing in Gundam Evolve is supported by Evolve Material. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, as I haven't seen the OVA or read the materials -- I gather there's a character who is unnamed in the OVA itself but the producer's published materials about the OVA names the character as Matsunaga? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The character is simply called "Gray Wolf" in the OVA episode, but never directly named. I've also looked for the Japanese form (シン・マツナガ) of his name in Evolve Material but couldn't find it. Mythsearcher, is your claim based on direct knowledge or just hearsay? --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my memory is playing tricks on me. Sorry. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a deuterocanonical in the sense of appearing only in ancillary materials rather than the canon sounds like a reasonable criteria for exclusion a character list. As such, not appropriate for merging, and as such even less appropriate for an independent article, and as such delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deuterocanonical is not correct. This character did appeared in Gundam Officials, which is canon.  He should be included in a character list, just not having his own article.  Merge(and trim to maybe just his name) to Mobile Suit Variations, where he first appeared, like all other MSV characters who somehow got their own articles.  I would also prefer using this as a precedent on all such characters in the Gundam related articles if merge is the case. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *head whirls* So he does appear, just not in Gundam Evolve as first stated? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must apologize for my poor memory, yes, he did not appear in Gundam Evolve. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gundam Officials is more of a technical and character encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So in ancillary materials only. In that sense, then, yes, that would deuterocanonical -- not in any canon show. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this word, which I found the meaning from the linked page, is highly disputive in this case. There are published materials that are not canon, but still related to the official(like "Crossbone Skullheart" or "Mobile Suit Gundam Vs. Giant God: Counterattack of Gigantis") It is not like the bible, where you do not have an actual highest authority(say, God) stating what is canon and what is not.  There is an official company, which got the power and authority identifying what is canon and what is not, whether fans accept it or not.  Also, the ancillary material published actually got its own article, though very poorly written,  it seems like reasonable to include such character in it, since he has reasonable coverage in such series and after.(unlike some other characters in the same series, who never got mentioned afterwards) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

COMMENT Uhmm, I'd just like to make a comment, not only about the article / character in question but most of the character articles in the Universal Century characters template (which can be found at the bottom of the discussed article's page). I have a hard time believing they are all notable. In fact, about 80-90% of the articles don't even have a single source on their page (INCLUDING THE ONE UP FOR DISCUSSION!!!!!). Unless the articles can be proven notable by Wiki standards, and they get some sources, they all should be deleted (or more accurately merged into a single large article). I don't see how people are even arguing to keep an article without a single reference cited in the article itself. It doesn't matter how important you think the article is, you have to prove notability by adding reliable sources or the article gets deleted. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless someone can find some reliable sources that proves its notability. The question should be asked: Can anyone find any non fan based or non third party references?--Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 1:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, did you mean to ask for non first party references? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we just do the merges without the AfDs? merging articles do not need the tedious AfD process, just be WP:BOLD and merge them. If anyone got reliable sources to improve the seperate articles, they can split them back out any time they want. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the article you want to merge lacks notability on its own, you will probably be wasting your time. --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be much easier to direct all of the MSV characters to the MSV page, then nom the MSV article for AfD. Then you need only 1 AfD and bunch of target deleted speedy delete notes.  For other characters that are from TV series but no notability, just merge them to the notable series.  I might be able to find some sources stating the MSV's notability, since I remember seeing it being mentioned in an issue of Dengeki magazine stating it is where the real Gunpla sales rockets, but my memory might be wrong, so I don't have much hopes for now, but we'll see. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people may consider that subversive though. ;) --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's see if I can untangle my poorly chosen metaphor above. The character is canonical insofar as he appears in materials created by the series producers; however, he is extra-canonical insofar as he does not appear in the text of the actual series. A watcher of the tv show would never see him, never hear his name, have no idea he exists. As such, he is not appropriate for merging to the character list for the show. Also as such, he also does not appear to pass any inclusion criterion for a standalone article. (As an aside, if a book's sales figures don't count towards its notability, which they explicitly do not, I don't see how a figurine's sales figures count toward the notability of a character.) All of which leads me to the conclusion of delete delete (ETA: striking accidental double-vote -- sorry 'bout that). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I endorse the double delete? ;) Oh well, jokes aside, it is quite obvious that a character that appeared in the MSV series should stay in the MSV article(at least before the article been deleted)  And BTW, his name is all over some model products(in which the MSV series is all about) so most of the viewers of the TV show, as long as they are interested in modeling, would hear his name.  Of course I am not saying keeping this article, but at least have his name in the MSV article just for the fact that he is from that series. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:59, 11 August 2009 (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.