Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century technology

Deletion rationale
Firstly, to get something out of the way; the Times source claims that they're going to meet on this in the future, doesn't specify what technologies they'll cover (yes, a few words are given to some subjects that happened to be covered in the Wiki article). However, I'm afraid this is too broad and too far in the future to be a strong-enough source to keep an entire article afloat; otherwise, any Gundam article would by the same reasoning be valid. So yes, the source demonstrates some real-world notability, just not enough due to the subject matter.

Also, there isn't enough coverage from other sources. As has been pointed out, the magazines are primary sources, despite being written by fans or whatnot. They were accepted as canon by the creators of the franchise, and therefore are primary sources. That would be ok, but as I said above, there aren't enough secondary sources to create a good balance. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D  21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr... They are endorsed, but the writings are substantially changed. They are currently not canon and thus your reasoning is not correct.  It seems like you are trying to apply your own views on the AfD results without discussion and knowledge instead of being an NPOV admin to close the AfD. MythSearchertalk 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that the deletion doesn't seem to reflect consensus. The closing admin seems to have dismissed the arguments made by those who supported keep while making his own arguments to support deletion (and a POV assessment of source quality). Perhaps he or she could have included these argument in the discussion and let a neutral admin close? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed it with a NPOV; I just provided deletion rationale to encapsule all deletion reasons and explained why I thought the keep arguments weren't strong enough to justify a keep. That's what every closer does; they just don't explain their reasoning. Besides, we close using our discretion if the issue is a close call. I'm sorry if this is seen as a biased close, but what's wrong with assessing a source according to WP:RS and so forth? Blindly closing AFDs just leads to disaster. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall, normally a close call should result in a no consensus and should at least show some degree of importance to the article meaning it should be kept for further improvement and in the case of none, it could be relisted for AfD. The close is seen as a biased close since a source published from a third party company that is (at least at the time of publication) authoritative in the field is seen as a primary source, which is totally not following WP:RS guidelines and purely original research based on the title of the book.  In fact, when Gundam Century's information is used in official publication, the authors still acknowledge that companies copyright and hard work on the outsiders.  Per WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. and WP:PSTS: Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.  Insisting on a third party published source being primary is showing a biased(at least biased on the view of lack of knowledge and failure to acknowledge the fact on unknown factors of one's self) tendency on choosing how to delete an article. MythSearchertalk 08:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra sources

 * 巨大ロボット誕生―最新ロボット工学がガンダムを生む
 * (Birth of Giant Robot - Latest Robotics Engineering birth from Gundam)
 * ISBN: 487966801X
 * Discussing how Gundam inspired the robotics engineering (probably in Japan).
 * 宇宙世紀科学読本―スペース・コロニーとガンダムのできるまで
 * (Universal Century Science digest - From Space colonies to what Gundam can do)
 * ISBN: 4048531557
 * Obvious discussion about Universal Century.
 * I am very disappointed with wiki right now, cheers to admins that reflect personal view and ABF instead of going for consensus from discussing when closing AfDs. MythSearchertalk 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal remarks aside, how do these sources prove notability? Who published them? "Universal Century science digest" sounds primary to me, unless this is another one of those "copyrighted-yet-not" deals. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything could sound primary, the fact is that it is not. It is published by a third party company, written by writers that are not hired by the copyright company, but journalist that are viewing it from a real-world perspective comparing it with real life science.  Technically, it is using real life science as a base to research and academically view the possibility of the science and technology in the series. MythSearchertalk 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically, journalists with no affiliation whatsoever to the series write articles about it and get them published in a publication with the same name as the series they are covering; who publishes it? (I'd figure that out but I can't read Japanese). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  04:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these books are not published by any company related to the copyright owner of the anime, and the authors are all not related and have never seen in production staff lists. (In fact, if they are related, Gundam Century's publishing company would not have gone out of business.) At most they have included interviews of the production staff, that is the closes primary part of these books.  I must add that the Japanese culture is rather different from other places, or maybe at least there are more geeks and nerds(check Otaku), they are interested in these stuff.  For example, there is this series of book named 空想科学, or Imaginary Science that made fun of the height, weight, power output settings of various shows including anime with scientific methods.(Like saying the monsters are too lightly densed and should have been blown away by wind or too dense so the ground should not be able to support them, though I give no credit to this series because it makes a lot of mistakes that even high-school level physics should be enough to tell of, the author, who is a part-time college lecturer, part-time tutor refuses to correct them in newer publications and thus I will not use it as a source unless necessary)  MythSearchertalk 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Background information The Gundam meta-series is published and licensed to Bandai and its sub-companies Sunrise (company) and Sotsu Agency. "Gundam Century" is published by Minori書房 (Minori book store), republished by Kishosha and sold by Genga publications.  "Birth of Giant Robot" is published by Shuwa system co., Ltd., and "Universal Century Science digest" is published by Kadokawa Shoten Publishing Co., Ltd..  Bandai got its own publication sub company, which is Mediaworks thus even the very newly published Otona no Gundam(Adult's Gundam, A book focused on the business side of the franchise including how much it earned and how it got its fame, so it is not a source for this particular article) which is published by Nikkei Business Publication, is not a primary source.  The exceptions would be Gundam Sentinel and other manga, since the publishers of those are not always related to Bandai but they clearly stated they are joint projects with Bandai.  Gundam is such a famous icon in Japan and Asia that the name itself is almost common usage.  Korea even ruled that Bandai cannot obtain the trademark of Gundam in Korea since it is already been common use in Korea to represent all Humanoid Robots (which is mainly due to the pirated copies and illegal use of anime cut scenes in Korea in the 80's to 90's)  MythSearchertalk 09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
This AfD is listed in the Deletion review page as I think it is deleted without justification from closing admin on consensus, but purely subjective view of closing admin. MythSearchertalk 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)