Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Century technology


 * 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 per WP:HEY, with commendation to MythSearcher. Skomorokh 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Universal Century technology

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

After surveying the page and its contents, I don't think it's suitable for inclusion on en.wikipedia, and would suggest transwiki-ing it to a Gundam wiki of some kind. It's a huge, seemingly indiscriminate list of WP:FANCRUFT with few citations, and even fewer that seem to be WP:Reliable Sources; some of them merely reference a book on amazon.jp. There's simply far too much detail, which I think the FANCRUFT tag that's been there since August of this year sums up nicely. I realize that other pages like this exist for other shows, but I wouldn't mind seeing them go as well; this is far too detailed and nowhere near notable enough for en.wikipedia, and far more suited for a wikipedia dedicated to Gundam. Cheers Skinny87 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an extra rationale, this would seem to be in breach of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#Directory, point seven, which states that wikipedia should not be used to host "A complete exposition of all possible details", as well as WP:IINFO, specifically point three, which prohibits "Excessive listing of statistics."


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  --  17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Excessively detailed, unencyclopedic, and a violation of WP:NOT#Directory, as stated by the nom. Ordinarily I'd go for a redirect, but the phrase "Universal Century technology" is an implausible redirect, so I !vote for delete. ƒ(Δ)² 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now neutral. ƒ(Δ)² 17:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like it was already up for deletion once before: Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century technology but got moved back to this title with the promise that it will be cleaned up: link to discussion -- &oelig; &trade; 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm satisfied with it now after the recent cleanup by MythSearcher. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, for both changing to keep and help in the formating and clean up. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article currently includes at least 7 reliable and verifiable secondary sources.(1 quite strange soruce in the talk page was exculded from the article) The article got quite a lot of new sources that is different from the last deletion and a proposal of deleting the lengthy list was given, it was being cleaned up and the only thing left is deleting the long list of items below, it is not performed yet simply because some of it is notable(AMBAC, Minovsky particle, Mega particle cannon and Funnels, each of these have citations maybe except the Minovsky particle for now).  The last AfD said it is not notable out-universe, yet the current article quotes The Times and various other sources stating the topic's notability in the real world, including an International Academy of Gundam was established, the AMBAC was used in other franchises (Macross) and real life robots was inspired by these.  Furthermore, it is also a secondary source that said the series adapted real life technology thus making it an academic material.  I can present a few new sources here as well, that are 3 books called When SF overtakes Science (Japanese), Mobile Suit Epoch (1 & 2 Chinese, independently published) it mentioned the Universal Century quite a few times for its space colony, directed energy weaponry, robot technology and such.  I can understand that the article is long and over detailed, it is also quoting a lot of non-English sources due to its Japanese nature and many of the secondary sources uses the name Gundam or Universal Century in the title to make them clear of what they are talking about and confuse a lot of foreigners that they are primary sources.  Yet these should not be used to distract the point that reliable, verifiable secondary sources do exist, and the directory status of the article is not a concern of the WP:N (notability only concern's the article, not the contents).  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt that the ability of the Gundam fictitious technology to inspire real-world technology is completely real and notable; that article was rather interested, actually, However, apart from a few sentences at the beginning of the article citing that article, the rest of Universal Century technology is simply a seemingly indiscriminate list of in-universe technology that should really only be that detailed in a Gundam-devoted wikia. When this article was nominated for AfD the first time, it was promised that it would be cleaned up; yet it hasn't, and I think there's been more than enough time to do so. I've no doubt that a (probably small but detailed) article could be written on how Gundam tech is influencing real tech, but this isn't it - that Times articles seems to have been used almost as an excuse to go into excessive detail about every weapon in the Gundamn universe, and wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for such lists. Skinny87 (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup: All it needs is to be shortened to avoid overdetailing but if there are too many people out there who wish to see this page removed from Wikipedia then it should be '''Trans-wikied to the Gundam Wiki if possible so this work will not be put to waste. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply That would be something that should be brought up in the article talk page, not an AfD, isn't it? Actually, since the talk page consensus is removing the lengthy list, you might as well be WP:BOLD and remove it yourself(and maybe leaving the sourced sections/sentences).  I don't see moving it to AfD without actually trying to contribute to the article while claiming it can be real and notable.  For the time issue, I will have to admit that I have been really busy and most of the sources and work on the alleged WP:NN articles of the said project are produced by me, and while others might support my work in some clean up, I have to from time to time engage in long and tedious AfDs. I will remove the list now, to show that it could be and would be done in order to save the article.(And also include the sources I brought up here)  However, please be patient while the grammar and spellings might be terrible since not much time was given for me to translate the sources and include Japanese quotations since I type Japanese really slow due to the fact that I do not know how to pronounce a lot of kanji(but my Chinese background allowed me to be able to read and understand most of them).  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Partly cleaned up If you deem any of the lengthy description still too long, feel free to trim them. I am done for now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic is clearly notable, given how much has been written by third-party sources on the subject; maybe more cleanup is needed, but it looks to be headed in the right direction. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable with the present references but need to adhere to strict reading of WP:V to avoid OR and other unverifiable stuffs which such article tend to attract. --KrebMarkt 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, that will be one of the main concerns. Another concern would be people trying to add back the long list of sourced stuff that are in-universe and not notable and are mainly only sourced from the primary sources.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:25, 10 September 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.