Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat


 * 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. If someone wants it for a gaming/strategy wiki, let me know.-Wafulz (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Superweapons of Ace Combat

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

No assertion of notability is in this article, and no assertion of notability seems possible. This would require research from reliable third party resources, and this article can only offer research from the game itself. That constitutes original research. As such, violates WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NN. Also see WP:GAMECRUFT #3 about lists of weapons being unsuitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:Writing about fiction, fails WP:Notability, fails WP:Original research, fails WP:NOT. Marasmusine (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - Do you think it would be possible to combine the information in Organizations of Ace Combat, Militaries of Ace Combat, Earth (Ace Combat) and Superweapons of Ace Combat into an Universe of Ace Combat article? This was done with Kingdom Hearts (see Universe of Kingdom Hearts). Thanks! (RCX (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC))


 * It's generally really tough to save weapons articles and they usually get deleted. But one thing that tends to stand up well in wikipedia is lists of characters. If you combined all of them into "list of characters in Ace Combat", I bet you'd have a stronger article altogether. That could incorporate the countries, the organizations, and maybe a brief note about where they're all situated (the map). That's why I recommended the weapons article for deletion, but felt that the other articles deserved a fair chance at cleanup. Randomran (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:WAF for being completely in-universe. No reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per existence of reliable sources and WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deleytion. Passes our notability guidelines and is consistent with what Wikipedia is.  Unquestionably suitable for inclusion on our project.  Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see who added that section.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reliable sources are strategy guides on the game, which certainly are reliable, but are not independent of the topic and show no critical reception; ergo, they do not assert any notability for the topic. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is fine for spinoff or sub-articles. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Go read WP:SS and WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could always Ignore All Rules as there is far more benefit to Wikipedia by keeping the article, whereas we gain nothing by losing it. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The main guideline was there long before I even first saw it. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." For all your assertions that this is notable, you provide no demonstrable proof that this should override the general rule that we don't do articles about lists of weapons. As shown by Sephiroth, first party sources cannot prove notability otherwise everything in the world would be notable. Randomran (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In some games perhaps, but not games that have things like "Combat" in the title. Given time, somone going through back issues of game magazines, is likely to find commentary on the weapons of the game.  In any event, when the article is not a copy vio and a legitimate redirect location exists, AfD is not the right venue.  Any article created in good faith represents a legitimate search term and so there is no reason for outright deletion here.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you have a problem with deletion policy in general. You're entitled to the opinion that all articles created in good faith should be immune to deletion. But then that opinion should go up the ladder to wikipedia policymakers. AFDs are about enforcing policy, not criticizing or making policy. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to do what I can as a lot of the policies and guidelines being cited in some of these AfDs just do not reflect the actual practise of the community at large. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the community might engage in edit wars, it doesn't invalidate the 3RR. Just because the community might love pictures, it doesn't invalidate that wikipedia follows copyright laws. Just because the community might add advertising, it doesn't invalidate the rule against ads. Just because the community adds non-notable information, it doesn't mean the notability requirement is invalid. Just because the community reads articles that eventually get deleted, it doesn't invalidate the deletion mechanism. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is an example of bad faith editing and is not fair to compare with the creation of these articles in good faith. Have you notified the various editors of this notable article to participate in this AfD?  If you haven't, then please do so, as we should hear from them as to why they believe this article should be kept.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring can be done entirely in good faith. Both parties engaging in the revert believe they are improving the article. It doesn't make it right. Contrary to your belief, good faith cannot justify violations of fundamental wikipedia policy. Randomran (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research from primary sources, in-universe, and beyond the scope of WP. Significant coverage in third-party sources would need to be found to demonstrate notability. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable as a spinout article and even in a worse case scenario it's a legitimate search term with avalid redirect location. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for anything and there is no reason for outright deletion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Spinout articles are indeed perfectly acceptable, provided that the spinout subject can itself satisfy WP:N (and if it can't, then it is unlikely ever to pass WP:V or WP:NOR). Furthermore, I did not claim that it was cruft; please read my comment carefully, paying attention to the contents of the linked pages, rather than just the titles of the shortcuts. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a contested shortcut that lacks consensus. This article can easily pass verifiability and is not original research.  Any concerns over it are talk page in nature as even if someone really does not like this article it can be redirected.  Maybe someone could make a case for a merge or a redirect, but there is absolutely no valid reason for an outright deletion, however.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I confess that I'm utterly mystified. I don't understand how the status of a shortcut could affect the legitimacy of the argument. Nevertheless, if it will address your concerns, here's the fully-specified page: WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.
 * As for your statement that it "can easily pass verifiability and is not original research", I'm sorry but I don't share your confidence. Obviously, however, if you or anyone else were to insert appropriate references in order to prove that it is verifiable and not OR, I would reconsider that opinion. Jakew (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - In-universe plot summary, trivia and original research with no evidence of "significant coverage" by reliable, third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is a legitimate search term, there's no reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So your standard has shifted from "because it's not a hoax or libelous, keep it" to an even broader, "someone might look for it, keep it"? Increasingly dubious. --EEMIV (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a hoax, nor is it libelous and over 5,000 times last month alone people have looked at it. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - can anyone even offer a citation to substantiate the use of the term "superweapon" in the series and the verify the vague definition of "extraordinary characteristics and capabilities" with either "inconceivable armaments" or providing "tactical combat support to ground and aerial forces." "Extraordinary" and "inconceivable" are vague, probably fan-"established" terms. "Extraordinary" and "inconceivable" to whom? What are the criteria for inclusion on this list with such vague terms? --EEMIV (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "superweapons" common to the Ace Combat series are titular to the plotlines and make significant changes in gameplay. Opinion changed, see below.ZappyGun,  his (empty) talk page,  and what he has done for Wikipedia.  13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't make subjective assessments of notability. The standard for notability is the same across all wikipedia articles. Please see the general notability guideline. If there weapons are so notable, you should be able to find journalists or scholars who have written about the superweapons of ace combat. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though notability has been asserted through reliable sources? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? I don't see it. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to look over the articles nominated. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, all of the sources cited in "References" section are the games themselves, hence not independent, and not evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's all? I saw those when I nominated the article. None of those meet the standard of the notability guideline, which is sources independent of the subject itself. If that's all you have, then I'd politely request that you change your vote. Randomran (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete the article it's awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.119.169 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)  — 69.253.119.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment That is not a valid argument, see WP:ILIKEIT.ZappyGun (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki (if not already) and Delete. Non-independent sources, sources do not assert notability, WP:PLOT.  Belongs on Strategywiki. ZappyGun  (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  13:57, 29 May 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.