Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was originally nominated for deletion on the 4th of Semptember. The debate was closed as a procedural keep due to the perceived inadequacy of the nomination. At Deletion review a consensus was reached to relist the article with a proper nomination. I believe that this subject does not have reliable, independent sources in order to be notable per the general notability guideline. While it is evident that sources exist for the television series of the same name (and later, the followon in the United States under the name Star Blazers), I have found no indication that sourcing exists which discusses the battleship itself. The external link in the article points to a bibliography on a fan site. While this appears promising, other links on the fan sites resolve to domain name squatters or tripod/geocities/etc. Furthermore, nothing in the titles of the books or magazines listed on that bibliography indicates that those sources discuss the battleship itself in detail. The article itself has been unsourced for almost 2 years, and while this itself is not reason for deletion, it should give us pause before we announce that sourcing must surely exist. I'm aware that the article has an obvious parent, so mergers could be entertained as well, but without verifiable content on the daughter article, there is nothing to merge so a post deletion redirect would accomplish the same thing. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) To make things more clear, I've struck part of the nomination. Protonk (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update A source has been found which covers the battleship itself in some detail. As such, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Since there are several god faith delete !votes, this AfD should still probably go the full five days, but the sourcing found by Nohansen below seems sufficient to keep the article. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, per all keep arguments in the first afd from earlier this week. Is the plan to nominate this over and over until you get the result you want?  For whatever unfathomable reason you want it?  208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to you-know-where. (Updated to keep based on sources found below per Nohansen/Gelmax. Nice work! Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC))  I followed the DRV discussion, so I'm deviating from my normal practice of !voting keep on procedural grounds for this speedy renomination; I do feel the original nomination affected the disscussion there.  I think Protonk's right about the sources, I too have been unable to find any specifically about the ship. My preference would be to redirect the article without deletion to preserve the page history in the event that reliable sources emerge (and as was mentioned in the prior AfD, the franchise is still active today. Yes, this means I think this could have been done without the AfD). Yes, as we all agree the anime is notable. But the ship itself does not meet WP:N for a stand-alone article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Protonk is 100% correct and I can add nothing. Reyk  YO!  13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- because of that source that was unearhted. Amazed it took so long to find it. Reyk  YO!  23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe not quite as notable as the USS Enterprise, but not too far off. Central vessel of a show spanning three seasons, several feature films, two sequel series, spinoffs, and all sorts of miscelleny such as comics, video games, an RPG, etc.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Subject is of interest to a very limited audience and this content would be more appropriate to a specialist wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Turlo Lomon in the first AfD, Starblind in this one. It really is like suggesting the deletion of the USS Entreprise. Edward321 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A major setting for a major entertainment franchise. Very notable within the genre and outside the United States. It only has "limited audience" in the United States, and WIkipedia is not to be American-centric or fall under WP:OSTRICH. There's plenty of stuff out there on Yamato. The comparison to the USS Enterprise or to the TARDIS is apt. 23skidoo (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Noca2plus (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of Nohansen's refs. Noca2plus (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Completely in universe style and full of POV forks. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No citations and one source. Not enough to confirm any notability. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator refusing to acknowledge that sources exist is not the same as there being no sources. Likewise, the nominator saying that he didn't bother to put forth any effort to verify the sources I listed but that he thinks without looking at them that they probably don't exactly apply is not the same as those sources not addressing the article content. The bibliography I provided was a bibliography for information on the series' ships. Essentially, I am contending that the sources used by a site with indepth information on this ship discuss the ship in detail, and the nominator's response (and thus the entire reason for relisting a clearly notable and proven to be notable subject) is that the titles of the sources in question do not explicitly state that they do, and therefore they must not (despite all evidence to the contrary). It's a major element of a thirty-eight year old anime, most sources are going to be in books and probably in Japanese, and you're not going to get very far relying on Google without utilizing critical thinking skills. And before someone brings it up, no, we don't have to have access to these specific sources for the article to be kept - finding sources that specifically discuss the battleship itself are just required for notability; the content requirements for verifiability are less strict and can probably be fulfilled. If the notability requirements applied to verifiability as well, the article would be unsalvagable because we'd have to rely on inaccessible and unobtainable sources, but that's not the case. Also, just curious, what do the nom and those arguing "merge" think of the main Space Battleship Yamato article? I was surprised it avoided this blitz of pointy AfDs given how poorly sourced it was. If you don't intend to AfD it, why not? This isn't really leading into a point or anything, it's just genuine curiosity. Gelmax (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I took a look at the single source you provided at the first AfD, and it is a fan site. It does nothing to establish notability. WP:N and WP:RS demand reliable secondary sources, which that fan site fails because it is nothing like "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  Reyk  YO!  02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fansite, yes, but it is a fansite's bibliography. You know, a thing which lists the sources that the fansite used for its material. The site itself is not a reliable source, but I never claimed that it was. It is a list of sources which are reliable, thus showing that they do exist even if they're not easy to find and it's really amazing just how many people have steadfastly refused to pick up on that simple point. Gelmax (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of alleged sources that nobody can see to evaluate, and which appear by their titles to be primary sources (thus no good for establishing notability), and which are related to us second-hand by a fansite of unknown reliability, is as useless as having no sources at all. Sorry. Reyk  YO!  04:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer some of these, keeping in mind that I have already answered some in the previous AfD. The reason I mention the "title" of the sources in question so many times is that the title of the series (which is obviously covered by multiples sources) is the same as the title of the battleship.  So, without knowing what is in the source, we cannot tell from the title of the source what is inside it.  so, even though "space battleship yamato" -wikipedia gets ~7,000 hits on google, I can't tell without searching through that list exhaustively whether the subject of those sources (should any of them be reliable) is the series or the ship.  Since a "-Wikipedia" search leaves mostly wikipedia articles on the first page of search results, we are better off moving on to books, where there are 324 sources.  On the last AfD I looked through the web available text of that list for ~20-40 minutes and didn't find any significant mention of the ship itself.  I also asked others to continue that search and prove me wrong.  I ask that again here.  I am happy to be wrong about this topic.  It would make me happy to know that some reliable source exists which covers the battleship itself in detail.  To date no one has taken me up on that.  As for the "main" article, I don't intend to send it to AfD, but I would expect that if it went to AfD it would be kept.  I was never on a crusade to nominate this article for deletion.  I just happened by the original discussion and when that flew off the rails I got consensus to relist this "early", so to speak.  as for the notability/verifiability split, I'm not sure where you are going.  I understand the differences between the two rules but I'm not sure how it applies.  Notability factors in if there are sources that cover the topic in detail.  The word "presumed" is in a specific spot in that sentence.  Often people misquote WP:N and argue that the possibility of sourcing means a presumption of notability.  Verifiability applies to content, yes, and primary sources can be used for verification, but the gist of WP:N is that we should have articles on topics where that isn't necessary.  In other words, if we followed WP:N, the number of articles where we would be forced to verify a claim from primary sources would be very low.  The guidelines aren't opposed or independent, they are related to each other very closely. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Protonk, it is evident that anything on that list has significant coverage of the ship in question, because if it didn't, it wouldn't be on the list in the first place. This is because it is a bibliography. The thing about bibliographies is that they are the sources for a work. To make an example, if I write an article about the Starship Enterprise, and I cite the Star Trek Magazine as one of my sources, are people going to look at my bibliography and say they can't tell if the Star Trek Magazine has significant coverage of the Enterprise because the title doesn't make it obvious? No, because it HAS to have significant coverage of the Enterprise for me to use it as my source. If it doesn't have significant coverage of the Enterprise, then I can't use it as a source for my paper about the Enterprise, and it won't be on my bibliography. Conversely, if it is on my bibliography, then it's because it had significant coverage of the Enterprise, even if it's not "The Enterprise Book Which Is Not Just About Star Trek But About The Enterprise Specifically". I should note that when I first typed this section, I had not yet noticed that your Google Books results included a Star Blazers magazine. Besides, the bibliography reinforces itself by listing, in the secondary sources, which section of the book it took the information from, in some cases clearly indicating that the book has significant coverage of the spaceship itself even if the title has no indication of this - Google Books isn't going to list the chapters of a book for you. Also, as I pointed out before, you're not going to get far relying on Google for this. Saying "I can't find any sources on Google" isn't even close to a statement that no sources exist - I'm arguing that most sources are going to be in book form, not listed on the internet, and probably not in English. Actually, speaking of English, didn't the English adaptation, Star Blazers, rename the ship to something entirely different? Also, your Google searches were borked - you need quotes before AND after the phrase you're intending to search for. Doing that helps your search results a bit, adding distinct features of the ship to the search (such as "wave motion gun", so famously associated with the ship that the Japanese Wikipedia has entries on the gun itself and a few other pieces of technology rather than combining them into one article about the ship itself). Gelmax (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what a bibliography is. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not acting like it. I explained what it was for a reason and it'd be nice if you could make some indication that you understood the point. Maybe you could even respond to it. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first nine sources of that bibliography are the shows themselves. The tenth is a book about Japanese battleship Yamato, not the space battleship.  the eleventh and twelfth sources are published by the production company.  the last is fan material.  I guess I understood the point, eh?  As for the other searches, feel free.  If you come up with something that covers the subject in detail and is independent from the company that makes the series, link to it. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The eleventh and twelfth sources were NOT published by the production company for Space Battleship Yamato, they were published by a foreign license owner, and I'd like to ask you to quit it with the misinformation. You're trying to make a black-and-white depiction out of a situation that's a splatter of gray, and it's obnoxious to equate anything that could possibly raise the consideration of questions to an automatic "No". Blind adherence to rules at any cost, without attempting to think for oneself or make reasonable concessions, isn't how Wikipedia works. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A foreign license owner is still not intellectually independent from the source. That is the big concern.  I'm not suggesting that things are black and white.  I'm suggesting (very narrowly) that the bibliography that we are discussing is comprised of sources that are not sufficient to establish notability on wikipedia.  It isn't "blind adherence to rules" by any stretch.  Those guidelines were written that way for a good reason and I agree with that reason.  If I didn't, I would be inclined to work to change the guideline. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom unless some of this alleged myriad of reliable sources are added to the article in the course of this discussion. --Stormie (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait, I'm overthinking this, as can be seen by all the stuff I typed above. Putting that aside...can't we just use the multitude of references and sources on the Japanese Wikipedia page, if not for the article then at least as notability evidence? It's quite well-sourced. Yamato (Yamato), Japanese Wikipedia Gelmax (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also got a "No original research" tag on it. :) Protonk (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain how that in any way refutes the fact that the Japanese counterpart article is well-sourced? Sure, it's got a "No original research" tag on it, but it also has plenty of sources. The two are not mutually exclusive. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Maybe I should have made the smiley face bigger.  I don't read Japanese.  How do we know whether or not their article cites independent sources?  That could be 12 footnotes of episodes for all I know.  And this is kind of the international version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of that is in any way true, though? Google Translate isn't reliable enough to get the accurate name of a source, but three seconds with it is enough to confirm several independent sources, and the fact that all of the sources are dated and it's formatted like a real bibliography should have been enough to confirm that it's not 12 footnotes of episodes even without making a basic effort to translate them...if you had even bothered to look. If you're going to demonstrate willful ignorance here, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. Additionally, you've demonstrated the basic knowledge of policy required to realize that what I suggested had nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I'm assuming that you're pretending to misunderstand to draw attention away from the fact that I've found sources you can't possibly deny. Again, willful ignorance. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sure it is. The fact that the japanese wikipedia has an article on something doesn't mean we should as well just for that fact.  If you can find reliable, independent sources cited in that article and point to them here or improve the article with them, go nuts.  But don't call my willfully ignorant. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Given that Yamato (the spaceship) is central to the development, plot and characters of Yamato (the series), any information related to the series' production will undoubtedly contain details related to the titular ship. Take, for example, this article on the evolution of the Yamato's design; or the documentary Space Battleship Yamato: The Making of an Anime Legend. I'm with all who !voted "keep" in the previous AFD. Yamato (the spaceship) is notable. After all, it was the first to wield the mighty Wave Motion Gun.--Nohansen (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Star Blazers magazine was published by the company that distributed Star Blazers the series in the US. Yup.  Voyager entertainment produced both the magazine and the show. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether that's a primary source or a secondary source is debatable, since they just redubbed the animation, and weren't involved in the creation of any of these plot points. To be frank, though, I was hoping we could avoid a debate on that since it's way out of the scope of this AfD and as much as I love policy discussion, it'll be another opinionated mess with two sides just covering their ears and talking as loudly as they can at each other. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not outside the realm of the AfD. Voyager makes money from distributing Star blazers materials in the states.  They write that magazine in order to further the interest in the material.  The magazine itself, insofar as it is published solely to cover the show, can't be used to establish notability for the subject.  That's 1/2 of the WP:N purpose, to stop wikipedia from being filled by articles based solely on promotional material. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect without deletion for a possible merger. The lack of sourcing is a serious issue, but since reliable primary sources are sure to exist even if secondary ones don't, WP:V can be met even if not WP:N.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or alternately Keep in light of improved sourcing. AfD is not not cleanup, as the saying goes, but if substantial article improvement is the result, I think that's a benefit all round.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unnotable fictional element that has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources to have a standalone article. No evidence of such coverage, with entire article seeming to be a blend of plot and WP:OR. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. An unverifiable list of "sources" on a fansite do not establish any sort of notability at all. Its relation to the series is irrelevant. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's blatantly notable both within and outside of the series. Sadly, the fact it's a 40-year old concept means it's impossible to find worthless IGN sources but that's no real reason for deletion. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Without any coverage to show that it is more than a simple element of the series, it doesn't require anything more than a description in the main article. TTN (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is this being renominated for deletion so soon after the last deletion discussion was closed? -Malkinann (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked to the deletion review as an explanation. Long story short: the first AfD was closed largely do to a poor nomination.  This is essentially just a relisting. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit premature? Only four days have passed since the closure of the previous discussion. -Malkinann (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was closed because the nomination suggested the topic was notable. Since the closing admin told me that was his/her reasoning, I got consensus at DRV to relist this with a proper nomination so a debate on the merits could occur.  I linked the DRV in this nomination statement and alluded to the reasoning for the last AfD close.  I don't feel it is premature if the last discussion never got off the ground. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus at DRV seems to say that you could relist it, but nothing was said about how soon would be appropriate. In the DRV you seemed to think it would be inappropriate for you to relist it so soon - I'm curious as to why you changed your mind?? -Malkinann (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant when I wrote that was if the AfD was closed and I was just unhappy with the result, rather than if there was a procedural question, I would not relist this article anywhere inside 2-3 months. In this case I made that DRV specifically to get some other eyes on my suggestion that the last AfD result shouldn't prejudge this one due to the nomination.  If the response at DRV had been mixed or negative, I wouldn't be here. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't get why you wanted to relist it so soon. I propose that we merge this with the main Space Battleship Yamato article as a "Setting" section (which will also include material from Space Battleship Yamato planets article per its recent AfD). -Malkinann (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particular reason. Partially it is so that I could remember to relist it.  the other part is that waiting is a lose/lose situation.  If I waited 3 weeks to relist this article, it would still appear hasty.  So as long as I'm going to take the hit for being hastly, I'd rather relist it sooner.  As for the merge, I have no problem with a bold merger while this discussion is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be a breach of etiquette to boldly merge the article (or at least, to boldly redirect the article) whilst the discussion is still ongoing? -Malkinann (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be the case. It may not.  I feel that if you judge the rough consensus here as preferring a merge or redirect over another outcome, you can probably try a WP:BRD merge.  You will likely not find too much opposition from the "delete" side.  A merge is the same thing as a post-deletion redirect so long as people don't reinstate the article immediately afterwards (We had a long running issue with this in the Warhammer 40K Wikiproject).  This article has an obvious parent and the deletion nomination wasn't for some "deleted under all circumstances" policy (like a vandalism only page or a BLP violation would be), so a merger really is fine from my standpoint.  I would have suggested a merge in the nomination but that tends to draw out the "AfD is not for mergers" response.  I'm also hesitant to outright endorse a merger over deletion as this can sometimes result in a closed Afd with good intentions to merge the article--usually those kinds of articles are still there months down the line. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this article should be kept due to multiple Google books hits as well as because the first discussion from just a few days ago already closed as keep. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll have to take my word for it that I spent a good deal of time looking through the web available text from those hits (not that bad, since there were only 71) and I haven't found anything yet. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick question (I am new and have only just started posting in some of these Articles for deletion discussions), are we supposed to reply to each other or just make a list of "keep"s or "delete"s? I noticed some also have "redirect" and "merge", but in the other discussions I participated in, such as Articles for deletion/Carlos amador munoz, Articles_for_deletion/Queer_West_News, and Wikuipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Nevard, there does not seem to be much interaction amongst the participants (although in that last one there is something about merging and deleting that has me curious).  Anyway, I guess my question is if I am expected to simply post my comment and move on or if I should discuss with the others in these?  --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good to discuss, but please remember WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:ATA. -Malkinann (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply; I shall check out those links ASAP! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If you haven't read it yet, you should read Articles for deletion and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. And yes, we are allowed to respond to one another, so long as its kept on topic, however replies are not required at all and you only should reply/discuss if you want to refute or need clarification (or to reply to a reply to you, of course, if you want). Sometimes people reply to clarify, or to refute a statement, but often times, particularly in fairly clear cases, there isn't much interaction. In more contentious debates, which these fictional element ones often end up being, you'll often see rather lengthy back and forths between folks.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply as well! As I replied to Malkinann above, I will spend some time reading through these links to get some ideas.  Maybe it is too soon to dive into these kinds of discussions, but I happened to come across one when I typed in the name of a character from a game I played and for which I was trying to find out some information.  Then I noticed this rather unsightly tag on the page, commented in the discussion, checked out the [{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] page and thought I might comment.  There seems to be a real disparity of clearly salvageable articles that I am surpised others are not also working to improve, but then there are some that for the life me I could not find any information to verify their content.  I am a bit surprised that some would go to the trouble of actually adding articles that essentially seem to be hoaxes, but I suppose we should not let ourselves be surprised by actions on the web.  Thanks again!  --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It varies. AfD is supposed to be a discussion, but many nominations are not conducive to discussion. an article that clearly doesn't belong on wikipedia will garner a few delete comments but there will be no reason for various commenters to reply to each other. The same is true with an article that clearly belongs on wikipedia. Even some discussions for articles right on the margin may go five days with little actual back and forth, simple because people are chiming in with their views and nothing has come up to discuss, per se. Sometimes people respond to many different comments indiscriminately. I prefer to not do that. I thought about not replying to yours, but did anyway because I figured it might be fruitful. As far as "norms", there is no rule that says you have to follow nominations you comment on. You may, if you like, comment and then never come back again. There are unwritten rules about carrying on a conversation in an AfD that isn't related to the deletion discussion, but you are unlikely to go down that road (it will be much longer than the conversations above) without knowing more about the process. Also, you are not 'required' to reply if I ask you a question or make a comment on your view. Unless you say something that is completely untrue and my reply points out that error, your opinion isn't "discounted" simply because someone replies to you and you do not follow up. Does that answer all of your questions? Protonk (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If nothing else it is encouraging to see my questions answered by so many so quickly and so throughly! One more...would I best off to only reply to people who reply to me?  --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a question about a comment, it is probably a good idea to ask it. Usually, if you are leaving a comment, try this test: if you see a "vote" and want to comment, imagine what would happen if you didn't comment and instead waited for 8 hours.  If, in that 8 hours, you can imagine more than one person making the same comment you were to make OR if in that 8 hours you could imagine yourself thinking better of making that comment, don't make it.  That cuts down on redundant or obvious comments and keeps you from saying something you might regret later (which is relatively easy to do online). Protonk (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay; I appreciate the helpful suggestions! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:N, WP:V.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are more articles on the Yamato franchise (Link). Again, we can presume that since the ship is central to Yamato, those articles will contain details related to the ship itself. We just need a chance to track the articles down.--Nohansen (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Central setting of a  notable series. Sources seem to be available.  DGG (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Could you please show us these sources that you speak of?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, now. There are a number of suggested sources in this very discussion, including the comment immediately above this one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nohansen says that there are articles about the series so we should presume that those articles cover the ship. that is different from articles that cover the ship itself, which is what Daedalus is asking for. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was one of those posted a few votes ago. Here it is again.  But you said it didn't count because it was apparently published by a magazine controlled by a company that stood to profit from the show's distribution in the US.  At this point you could be sitting on a crateful of Yamato books and you'd still say they don't exist. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If all of those books were written by the company producing the show, then yes. One of the functions of WP:N is to ensure that the distribution of topics covered in wikipedia matches coverage in reliable sources, not internal publication.  If some anime mag did an article on the Yamato that would be a sign that the subject was notable.  the same can't be said for a magazine made to cover the Yamato.  There is no "editorial control" if the publisher is forced or incented to cover the subject directly.  This isn't a controversial reading of our policies and guidelines, please try not to distort it in order to lampoon my position. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're trying to tell me that, in all seriousness, you genuinely believe that in 40 years no independent magazines or books have covered the Yamato? We're talking about a show that was released wordwide, and in some countries has cultural impact approaching Star Trek proportions.  It's simply unfathomable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't unfathomable. And if it is so obviously notable, why aren't we up to our ears in sources covering the topic?  Take the google books list I mentioned.  71 hits for the text string "Space Battleship Yamato".  As Gelmax point out, other search strings may result in more.  If you or anyone else can find something on those hits that covers the subject and is independent from the production company, I'm all ears.  But I'm not inclined to take it on faith that sources exist if the article hasn't seen any in 2 years and neither the last AfD nor this one have resulted in any being produced. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't as simple as typing in "Space Battleship Yamato" and calling it a day (and besides, since when is 71 Google Books hits a low number anyway?). Yamato was released in many countries and the main ship was often renamed (Argo in the US, for example).  The sources are definitely out there.  In about a 2-minute search I found this page, which gives both two full-length books--Shogakukan's This is Animation: The Select Volumes #2 and #4--as well as a Starlog article.   A dedicated researcher who can read Japanese and has access to Japanese libraries could probably find many, many more.  But I maintain at this point you're so entreched in your opinion that nothing is going to be good enough.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not insisting that it is simple. You are making me out to be more cavalier and unreasonable than I am.  All I'm asking for is someone, in good faith, to say "this source mentions the subject in detail on these pages" or "here is a link to a source that mentions the subject in detail".  What I don't find convincing is "there are books on a subject which is intimately related, therefore they should cover the subject".  I don't think it is unfair to redirect or delete this article until someone can be bothered to find sources. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're finding sources. There've been plenty of them posted in these AfDs. You're just unilaterally judging that they must not apply, which isn't the same thing as those sources not applying. It is reasonable to assume that discussion of an anime about a space battleship also covers the space battleship. You're falling back on delibrate ignorance and rule-lawyering here, and I can't really understand why, unless you're frustrated that this isn't as clear-cut as you like and are trying to make this a POINTy deletion like the nominator for the first AfD was. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent). I'm a pretty reasonable person.  All I've done is nominate this article for deletion because there appear to not be multiple independent sources discussing the topic in detail.  When non-independent sources have been presented, I have just noted what the community consensus is about those articles: they don't establish notability because they aren't intellectually independent.  We build this encyclopedia around subjects covered in secondary works.  Coverage in a company produced magazine does not establish notability.  that isn't rules lawyering.  It isn't disrupting wikipedia to make a point.  It's just the facts.  And take this as a warning.  I'm not interested in being told I'm stonewalling, wikilawyering, obtuse, ignorant or anything else.  No one is forcing you to respond to me.  I'm not stopping anyone from finding sources.  We are just on opposite sides of an AfD.  It happens every day.  It doesn't make me Snidely Whiplash. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, you're NOT being reasonable. You wanted sources.  Ok, you've been given sources.  Book sources.  Magazine sources.  Japanese sources.  English sources.  Primary Sources.  Secondary sources.  Sources that cover the show.  Sources that cover the ship.  Recent sources.  Historical sources.  The sourcing uncovered in this AfD alone is more than enough to push the article into the top 10% at least of all WP articles, verifiability wise.  There's a fine line indeed between taking a hard, policy-based stance on reliable sourcing (which is good) and "La la la la la, I'm not listening!" (which is bad).  Take a minute or two and look at all the sources presented in this AfD and ask yourself if you REALLY still find all of it to be insufficient. Really? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first source independent from the subject that covered the battleship itself that has been linked to or noted specifically (rather than waved at) was Nohansen's at the bottom of the page. You'll notice that once that source was found, I withdrew my nomination.  I stand by my statement that the sources mentioned previously don't extablish notability (insofar as they are not independent or not actually about the ship).  So, if I withdrew my nom based on clear sourcing out there, how is that willfully ignorant? Protonk (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Putting this in a new comment since I'm getting mired in constant arguments with Protonk and I doubt anyone wants to read them, but I've found independent secondary sources that cover this work. There's the "EB22 'Yamato Akira Oozu 1 Mechanic'", published by Bandai in 1990, there's the "DNA media Books' Yamato Harukanaru Iskandar Cels stars'", published by Studio DNA in 2000, and "ROMANARUBAMUDERAKKUSU 36 'Yamato me forever'", published by Tokuma Shoten in 1980. Pardon the poor translations, but I can't read Japanese so there's only so much I can do on my own, and some editors seem determined to stonewall any attempts to work together to find sources. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N says deletion discussions "should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established". And the probability for establishing the Yamato's notability? I'd say it fluctuates from "high" to "very high". WP:N also says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. WP:FICT explains this includes "design, development, reception and cultural impact" of the fictional element or "secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work", all of which can be found on the Star Blazers website (a source of information that is "at least one step removed" from Yamato and the titular ship) or any of the articles cited in "Comic Art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America Through 2000".--Nohansen (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I suggest you read the rules more thoroughly, as the Starblazers site is not one step removed from the material we are debating. I cannot stress this enough, the secondary source must be independent from the subject.  Please review what independent from the subject means.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 04:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — no assertion of notability through reliable sources independent of the topic. As it stands, the entire article is unsourced plot summary and original research. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the influence of the Yamato: This article writes on how Yamato's design was "borrowed" by the starship Excalibur, right down to the Wave Motion Gun. On the Yamato's significance: the article "When Pacifist Japan Fights" in Networks of Desire. Again, there's plenty of "independent sources" because any article on the series will touch on the series' titular "character". You can't divorce the two.--Nohansen (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one is non RS, but the second one is perfect. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the existence of pages which can never be cited, but when it comes to articles on 60s and 70s anime and manga, we need to take a much more eventualist view towards improving and sourcing them. --erachima talk 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: After wading through all the sources given above, I find enough of them are third-party sources that specifically discuss the ship (as opposed to the work), its development, political importance, and influence to demonstrate the ship is notabile. Plus there's Gelmax's articles, which no one seems to have noted. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nohansen. I'd also like to note that this AfD is a prime example of Wikipedia's worrisome systemic bias against the older anime and manga pages. Yes, they're hell to source because the English fandom hardly existed back then, but something like the Yamato is far more important to have an article on than stuff like Naruto Uzumaki that nobody as much as blinks at keeping around.
 * Keep - erachima said it. Their are probably tens of sources in Japanesee, we'll just have to wait. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 16 September 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.