Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RB-79 Ball

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RB-79 Ball

[edit]
RB-79 Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article describes in intimate detail a fictional weapon appearing in a comic. Not notable. Perhaps of interest within an anime wiki, but not wikipedia. Oscarthecat 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Do note that the information in this page does hold "historical significance" to the GUNDAM Series. You would have to remove the series from thsi website to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.112.2 (talk) 03:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC) — 74.166.112.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes we do, unless they're notable, please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Oscarthecat 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor example to use. That article points to an entire series of games and related subjects, and is notable based on the coverage of different aspects of its broad nature. This specifically addresses a single weapon in an entirely in-universe manner. If you cannot give any sources beside the guidebooks, which are not independent of the fictional universe, thus not satisfying WP:FICT, then the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Keep and extensively rewrite in out-of-universe style pending 3rd party references to back notability claims. Simply being featured in multiple productions, even one "crossover" production, do not imply notability. Guidelines are clear here. It has to be covered in 3rd party reliable published sources. Eleland 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not to mention the fact that nothing can be reliable published source from deletionist view points? Whenever something like this comes up, it is just going the way it is: no, this is not a 3rd party source even if it is published by someone else, it got the name Gundam on it so it must be bad and No, it is not a notable source(when does sources have to be notable? they only need to be verifiable and reliable) and No, a magazine is not reliable (I assume wiki needs the expertise source on this, and the magazine is the most expertised one?). Come on, don't make up rules, and I will have to repeat one more time, a source having the word Gundam in it does not mean it is a guidebook, nor meaning it is primary source. 3rd party CAN and WILL publish books on things like these and will have the word Gundam in it for simplicity sake. MythSearchertalk 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:FICTION requires "substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". If a well-established and widely circulated magazine about modeling had an article devoted solely or largely to this RB-79 thing, that would be a point in favour of keeping. If GundamCruft Bimonthly has such an article, it's justifiable to ask what that contributes to verifiability. Does such a magazine have an established structure for fact-checking? How do we know they didn't just read the Wikipedia article and then publish the details... which are then used as citations on the Wikipedia article? Eleland 15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Okay, 3 of the most notable modeling magazine in Japan, Model Graphix, Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby(the first 2 predates the gundam series) were suggested in these Afd discussions, and were all thrown out of the window by deletionists. The first one, Model Graphix, having its own little serial story that featured a RB-79 in it called Gundam Sentinel 0079, and got a model built from scratch just for the purpose of the story, interviewed the designer Katoki Hajime, the second magazine, Hobby Japan, got at least 3 RB-79 Ball contests that took up over 30 pages on 3 different issues(sourced in the 3rd issue with these contests stating there was 2 before) and more 3~5 page coverage over the years devoted on model building of the RB-79 model, everytime having at least short description on the RB-79 itself instead of the modeling methods, and the love of the mecha itself by the modellers, quoting official settings and more reality check talk, the third magazine, Dengeki Hobby, holds a modelling competition on Gundam every year and the 2006 winner is using a RB-79 Ball and got 5 page feature for that, including interviews of the designer, again. And a 3rd party company that is by no means asked by the original company that created Gundam, went through the interviews of the series director, mecha designer and settings personel and published a book called Gundam Century which is not a guidebook but a nice little interview and expert talk on technology ranging from particle beam to mass driver to island 3 space colonies and lagrangian points and space pods and manipulators of the real world and comparing them to the nice o' Gundam fictional universe. I believe these are pretty valid hard core data we can rely on? MythSearchertalk 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment What I'm hearing is, "plastic models of the RB-79 are notable". The article doesn't seem to be about plastic models, though. It needs to be extensively rewritten with fictional in-universe content greatly reduced. Eleland 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply No, plastic models of the RB-79 are seen so much because the mecha itself is popular and of great interest in the culture, not the specific plastic model itself is notable. Plastic modelling is a way of putting one's love into the topic, the whole modelling culture is notable, and thus constantly using it to express interest on a subject makes the subject notable. MythSearchertalk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom. The same guy that created this one has started a number of other Gundam-related AfDs, all with the same rationale. Jtrainor 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what the issue is. Many Gundam articles exist, many with the same lack of notability, so the same rationale etc. I feel each one nominated is eligible for Delete. --Oscarthecat 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about you obviously not reading the articles, which is made blatantly obvious by your attempted shotgun nom in the F90 deletion article? Jtrainor 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a read of this article. I'm sure it's of interest to fans of such anime, but it appears to fail WP:FICT criteria. Suspect we're not going to agree on this so I'll sit back and see what other editors feel. --Oscarthecat 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Oscarthecat 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of discussion, can you find any points in countering anyone's point about this article is notable? You have not reply in any of the items I have brought out to claim its notability, User:Eleland is trying to do so, but not you. You keep saying notability is a factor, and we do too, yet you failed to explain why it is not notable, other than the incorrect statement claiming it is from a comic, which it is not. Do you even know that Eleland has made changes to the article and now it is shorter and easier to understand right now and he/she is making(or at least trying to make) a better effort in discussion about the Afd more than you do? This is a discussion, if you talk about notability, can you at least try to discuss what kind of stuff is lacking right now so someone can at least try to fix it in order to save the article? You show no traces of any will to try helping it to meet your standards and it seems like no matter what others do, and no matter what how notable it is, you are still going to claim it is not notable at all. MythSearchertalk 10:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mythsearcher. I'm working from the notability policy at WP:NOTE, specifically "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's lots of sources cited, but they're hardly independent of the subject, they're books about Gundam, or they're other anime sites/programmes. I nominated a few Gundam-related articles as they appeared to be sheer fancruft (which in its own right isn't reason for deletion, admittedly) but they covered such details as fictional operating system names, versions and so on. I'm all for improving the articles, but to make them less fan-orientated and more general. If we need to go into the depths of model statistics (which some other Gundan articles have been doing) then they seem to be good candidates for a transwiki move. Regards, --Oscarthecat 10:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I keep bringing up, a third party source using the name Gundam in its title is reasonable, since it is about that topic. For example, if I want to write a book about cats, what is a good name for my book? The Cats or Felis silvestris? And would it be a more reliable souce if the book is purely about cats, or if the book only have parts of it about cats, like a book called General description of domesticated animals? If a hobby magazine claims it to be One of the most popular mecha, there's got to be some notability in it, right? And if people keep holding up functions purely for this particular mecha, while not even the main mecha in the series: Gundam got events like that, that is another good notability check. It is not model statistics, it is the events and functions held just for this mecha shows notability. The current version shows no fictional operating system names and versions, and only a little plot summary and the real-life impact of such mecha. It could be improved, but I am saying, just this particular mecha, right now, not any others you have nominated, what is it that you are looking at that is missing, what is required to make it notable enough to have its own article when a magazine claiming it to be one of the most popular does not work. Name it, and I will go get the sources and add it in for you. I am all into playing this little game, every time it is just we find tons of sources and the nominator playing dirty and keep saying it is not notable enough no matter what we get, no matter what source is found, nothing is useful, magazines from third party sources were claimed to be not notable themselves, newspaper cuttings were said to have no fact checking methods, anything that got Gundam in it is evil and cannot be used, no, even a sci-fi fan magazine cutting helps at all, so this time we go the other way, name it, and we will find it. Yes, I am THAT confident in finding what you want on this one. Just tell me what kind of sources make it notable enough to have its own article, if you cannot say it specifically, give me an example article of a fictional machine that meets all you requirements(i.e. you will not nominate it for deletion) and we can work on getting the same amount of sources and maybe even exceeding the amount and type in it, be it newspaper, magazine or TV shows. MythSearchertalk 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Hobby Japan is a magazine that predates Gundam, if not modern Japanese Anime, for over a decade(The magazine first published in the 1960s, and Gundam is 1979 product) and it is just not other anime/programmes. It is a respectable nice popular famous magazine about peoples hobby, including but not limiting to rafting, sports bike, military diorama modelling, aircraft and land vehicle modelling, movies, anime, figuraing, computer technology, gaming, comics, conventions, etc. I have face this kind of convesation before, everything that makes a notability call to whoever nominated an article for deletion, nothing, seriously, absolutely NOTHING is reliable. If this is NOT a third party independent reliable source, I do not know where on earth can anyone find anything notable at all, MythSearchertalk 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most popular mecha of the series. There are tons more non-notable Gundam mecha articles out there that do not deserve their own articles. Why pick the famous ones? It's almost as if the nominator has no familiarity with the series. The nominator should probably work with the Gundam WikiProject to hash out article inclusion guidelines for Gundam mecha and avoid nominating the notable ones. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to further note that without exception, every Gundam-related article that has had a re-write attempt after deletion got re-deleted and then protected to prevent recreation. Jtrainor 11:37, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RB-79_Ball&oldid=1138271871"