Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timelines of Gundam


 * 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Timelines of Gundam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Articles fails WP:GNG, in that there is no significant coverage from reliable, independent sources about the "timelines of Gundam" that would establish real-world notability, and a Google Books search has proved inconclusive. Per the absence of any secondary coverage, WP:LISTN is also failed. Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this is an unnecessary split about a non-notable subtopic of Gundam that shouldn't have been done. A large part of the article is dedicated to plot summarization which violates WP:NOTPLOT, what little non-plot commentary there is, is either non-sourced, sourced to first-party ("Bandai"), or sourced to unreliable sources ("fans"). Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Nomination in light of an ongoing dispute is problematic for me, but the content and format of this developing article meets WP:CSC because the various timelines are all demonstrably a part of the group, are all major works that contain multiple media entries and have been unified with the Gundam's "Correct Century" Timeline that assembles the past as "Dark History" in works like AGE. This page simply cannot exist on the Franchise page, it would be too long and too detailed, this page will function as a complete list of Gundam works by chronologically, especially the Universal Century series which has been developed for 30 years. Universal Century lists some, bot not all of the media, while List of Gundam manga and novels is going to be merged into the Timelines in a better scope than the Star Wars media List of Star Wars comic books and List of Star Wars books which do the exact same thing, but are separate and do not bring to bear the entirety of the media in one format. It seems perfectly acceptable to have one page to do this as it not only aides in comprehending the behemoth that is Gundam, but puts the media in context which is key to understanding events from one work to the next. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CSC is not a notability guideline, what you're looking for is WP:LISTN, which states "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The problem here is that the topic of Gundam timelines in itself is not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article/list, and as such is not acceptable at all. You already have a complete list of Gundam-related media at Gundam (and the various pages such as List of Gundam manga and novels), and copy-pasting that list elsewhere is not gonna be of any use, nor is adding coverage on timelines unsupported by any secondary RS. If the point is to build a list of Gundam fictional works, then name it so and drop the fictional timeline ordering (and any timeline content) in favor of an ordering per release date.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a list and corresponds to CSC and it completely meets LISTN, specifically " The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." Gundam is notable, the entire body of works has been subject to over 50 "Bibles" on it, dozens of fan works and compendiums that when stacked up are taller than you are. This page serves a major purpose and combining the pages fixes a problem. Anything beyond this will get into petty details to argue over, but the entire premise is acceptable under LISTN and has long stood as a smaller list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not "clearly a list" as it begins with a prose section on timeline. To me, this looks like content randomly pieced up together without any clear direction.
 * Gundam is notable, but this article isn't "Gundam". It's "Timelines of Gundam". Per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". For this to be notable you'll have to find coverage on the timelines of Gundam. Otherwise, as I've told you, if the point is to build a list of Gundam fictional works, then name it so and drop the fictional timeline ordering (and any timeline content) which violates WP:INUNIVERSE, in favor of an ordering per release date.


 * Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:DIR, this is all just plot info with nothing behind it to back anything up real world speaking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a plot summary, lyric database or statistics, and you cited DIR wrong, but this is also not a directory and none of the criteria apply. Yes, this list follows an in-universe chronology of an extremely complex and numerous body of works. Its purpose is to make sense of that which cannot be stated in any other form or in any other way as concisely and as clearly as this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fictional chronology is plot summary, and WP:DIR is appropriately cited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The topic is Gundam and its 100+ works. The chronology of Gundam is also important with over 50 books in a single series describing various aspects including the timelines and backstory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the last time no, the topic isn't "Gundam", it's "Timelines of Gundam". And where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general". I doubt the "50 books describing the timeline and backstory" you refer to are proper reliable and independent secondary sources, as WP:N requires.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy I'm not familiar enough with the finer points of notability to take out my wikilawyering foil and jump into this fencing match, but the article as is does not have a single citation, and the lead and Calendar system sections need a full rewrite with an eye on clarity, as I (as someone with no knowledge of the series) have no idea what's happening. Right now, this is not a presentable article, and I don't think I'm comfortable judging its notability in this state. If userfying isn't an option though, I would lean towards delete, not from a policy standpoint as much as from a personal belief that any article that doesn't have sources (and whose sources weren't removed as a result of malice), regardless of content or circumstance, should be deleted or userfied. Nothing in the mainspace should be allowed not to have sources, period.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as it currently does nothing to establish its relevance from a real world perspective and the fact that it is not a necessary companion article. TTN (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2013 (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.