Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century mobile units

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 no consensus. WjBscribe 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century mobile units

Indiscriminate list of model units from Gundam. Suitable for manga/anime wiki, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and slash in half with a beam sword Complete fancruft list this is what categories are for. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, it would be best if all of the units got their own article and this became a category. Yet no, it is impossible to create an article for each of them. It WOULD make more sense to be split into difference series with each and and everyone of them have a short description. No description, no article, not even in a list. So, Delete, but not speedy delete, sorry, it does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. MythSearcher^talk 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qualifies as a list as per WP:LIST. Also, it looks useful to anyone interested in writing or developing Gundam material. The criteria for inclusion are specific enough not to be considered indiscriminate - if it grows too large, split it up. This appears to be an an excellent research tool for an admittedly fictional subject. But Wikipedia covers fiction just as thoroughly as it does reality-based subjects. Wikipedia caters to everyone, including writers (of scripts, screenplays, novels, etc.), game developers (of video games, RPGs, boardgames, etc.), and enthusiasts (readers, players, etc.). This list looks eminently useful for these types of users. Compare this with Wikipedia's coverage of D&D, Star Wars, and Star Trek. The Transhumanist 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST covers style of lists, not notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and I hope you'll change your mind and agree that this just isn't notable per the guideline. --Oscarthecat 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly don't know what Gundam Universal Century is (it's an anime of some sort, I gather), nor where this list of F90 and RGM and RX machinery is drawn from (and it's a long list). However, even a list of so-called mobile units (any machine that moves?) in, say, the Star Wars universe would not be encylcopedic. Some worlds that exist in the imagination should stay in the imagination. Mandsford 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Category:Star Wars vehicles and even Category:Star Wars lists. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't really think I would wish to... Mandsford 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a fan wiki. WP is not a directory of units in a fictional show - This content is ideal for a fansite/wiki Corpx 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out-of-universe sources to establish notability beyond the scope of the series. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check [[1]] for an out of universe source. FrozenPurpleCube 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still in-universe, thus not passing WP:FICT, and does not constitute a third party source. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The style of writing is irrelevant, it's still out of universe, in the sense that it's a non-fiction work existing outside of a fiction series. Thus I find your objection unconvincing. The series is notable enough for people to write and sell books about concepts within it. Makes for a case for notability for me. WAF concerns can be addressed with appropriate writing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that you read the post, especially considering that this was the correct one. Addressed above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's three conceptually related nominations at once, means we're all repeating arguments. Pardon me for saving my time with a bit of copying and pasting. My position remains the same regardless, and it's not like you're offering substantial arguments anyway, let alone substantially different ones. FrozenPurpleCube 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, per my entries on the other Gundam-related AfDs started by this user. Jtrainor 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. --Oscarthecat 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the two biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate' and it given no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted [2] is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor. All these nominations are the same so I won't bother with a new rationale for each one. MalikCarr 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which not an indesriminate list and has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the place where non-notable Gundam mecha should go. --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment surely the fact they're non-notable means they don't belong at all? --

Oscarthecat 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is usually used as one criterion for determining whether a *separate article* is warranted for a particular thing. Lack of notability does not mean the encyclopedia should not be allowed to treat a topic whether as a section of a wider topic or as a list. There are many such situations here in Wikipedia.--Polaron | Talk 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Rehevkor 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion as it is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jtrainor 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.