Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WD-M01 Turn A 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WD-M01 Turn A Gundam

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   -- TTN (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom simply copy and pasted statements without reading the article. A very strong sense of nominating things s/he does not understand as not notable which obviously falls on ignoring guidelines of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. This particular article contains WP:RS unlike the nom claimed it does not. MythSearchertalk 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I added "non-trivial" to my usual statement to reflect that any sources included are not used to establish notability. I really shouldn't need to specifically note how they are trivial. Toys never establish notability anyway. TTN (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is your problem, you do not understand this particular sub-culture, and totally ignore the notability of hobby modeling by simply judge the whole lot not notable by injustice pre-ruling in your own mind. You can use the same reasoning on most car articles stating car styles are never notable, they only need to be driven.  Which is simply showing one single point: You do not care and since you don't care, it must be not notable.  MythSearchertalk 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is there to understand? This is an element of fiction that doesn't establish notability. It has a few models released as a promotion for a DVD release and some trivial one hundredth model benchmark, which is no more signifcant than the hundreds of thousands of other toys and models released of other characters and elements from other series. TTN (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a special campaign started just for this particular mecha, and is not the same as simple franchise release of products. If it only got a model release with no special campaign that got 2 independent magazines involved, that is your generic no more signifcant than the hundreds of thousands of other toys and models released of other characters and elements from other series, this is not the case this time, you don't often get toys with special release campaign that involve other producers. You have a strong tendency of labeling fictional items as not notable with no actual knowledge, and during an AfD discussion, view everything that you do not understand as trivial. Like I said, I have no interest in cars, and all car models are indifferent to me, all of the tiny bisy specs and performances are simply trivial data to someone with no interest in the topic.  This is your reasoning, you have no interest, thus you view everything of that sort trivial and not notable. The listed source here is not a simple It got 3 toys released in the past 10 years type of source, the listed source is talking about a full campaign that involved the main company and 2 independent companies that is not simply promoting the new product, but celebrating the release of one single model that was longed for in the field.  It carries the same weight as something like The new series X car is finally being released, it attracted car lovers for such a long time, we, two opposing companies, decided to celebrate together and build 2 different concept models of the series X. MythSearchertalk 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby are independent magazines, how do you claim a no 3rd party ref? Blatantly incorrect and simply showing how this is only a vote of yours with no knowledge in the subject. MythSearchertalk 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has references; mecha in question is 'main character' in it's series. Jtrainor (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mythsearcher. Haven't we done this before? MalikCarr (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a list of Turn A Gundam gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mythsearcher, Jtrainor. Article is sourced. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Mythsearcher and Jtrainor. -- Banj e  b oi   18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, more Gundamcruft. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment as an admin, you must be familiar with the WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CRUFTCRUFT. MythSearchertalk 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mtyhsearcher and Jtrainor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:31, 22 October 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.