Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

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 of the debate was keep. There's obviously a strong view here that these articles are important to somebody, and while you or I may view them as "cruft", the argument "nobody cares about these articles" doesn't seem like it's going to wash. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a walled garden of almost a hundred articles that I proposed for deletion. All PROD tags have been removed, so they come here. I'll nominate them one at a time or in small groups to avoid problems like those seen with the mass nomination of polynesian mythology articles. This is obviously fancruft, highly specific material about a fictional world. These articles go into excrutiating detail on the specifications of fictional giant robots from a Japanese cartoon. It's not of general or encyclopedic appeal, and this series already has a Wiki at WikiCities anyway. It needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 23:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for a reasonably detailed nomination. While the articles were not deleted, it is good to see people expending a bit of effort in describing why they think an article should be deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. It would probably be better to discuss this in general though as there.. is a lot. Kotepho 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - These seem to be really really crufty (more so than Pokemon articles). But I really can't see them being deleted, they have been on Wikipedia for years and have been on the Japanese Wikipedia for similar amounts of time. I really can't tell how popular or important any of these Gundam suits are. I mean, I can't tell whether one is an important weapon used by a principle character in many episodes or just a throwaway generic suit. Because of this lack of information, I think people will just be safe and not vote to delete. - Hahnchen 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By that logic, should we also delete Imperial stormtrooper? After all, the stormtroopers were nameless generic grunts. The "throwaway generic suits" in Gundam serve a very similar role: anonymous minor enemies for the main characters to fight against. Redxiv 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the ones with real importance in the series, delete the rest. (and, like Hahnch, I'm not qualified to say which ones are important) -- Hirudo 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep While I don't like SEED much, it's worth to keep. No general interest? Gundam is consider to be largest mecha franchise in Japan. Delete these article would be like delete all Star Wars's article like AT-AT, AT-ST and AT-PT(and there are TWO wiki web for Star Wars already as well). Not that I don't like Star Wars, but Japaneese anime is a form of art too. If mecha and spaceship from American's sci-fi movie can be include here in Wikipedia, why mecha from Japaneese sci-fi anime can't? L-Zwei 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your (unstated) assumption that editors here are favoring Star Wars cruft over Gundam are just plain wrong. Cruft is cruft. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well-expressed nomination. Eusebeus 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I wouldn't like it if it were moved since not only do many people not know of Gundam Wikicities, but also it is not as well developed as regular Wikipedia. -Adv193 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki articles to wikia:c:Gundam as it appears from comments above that the articles currently at wikia:c:Gundam are not complete (missing pics, etc). I'd also support a Merge to Weapons in Gundam universe if there is a strong interest level in keeping some mention of this in Wikipedia. A link to wikia:c:Gundam would be wholly appropriate there. No good, logical reason for keeping separate articles for all these things has been put forth. For the record, this would be my preferred treatment for Star Wars vehicle, weapon, et al articles; Pokemon; and virtually every other fictional world that spawns this level of minutae. Just a note... I cut & paste my response from the April 24 nom dealing with Gundam. Since it appears there are multiple noms for this material, solution should be globally consistant for all of these articles.--Isotope23 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I strongly oppose Mr. Crawford's attempt at a one-man purge of everything Gundam. The fact that somebody's created their own Wiki for Gundam doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If anything, that should be taken as more evidence of the notability of Gundam. Redxiv 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually it shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything, other than the fact that some person out there wanted to start their own Gundam wiki where they could control the content.--Isotope23 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, process objection. These articles are not sufficiently similar to warrant bundling them together in this group while others get bundled together in a different group. I don't like all this Gundam cruft, but these small-group AfDs are a bad way to decide the question. It feels somewhat like gaming the system to me. Mangojuice 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE there are related mass deletions on April 24 AfD 132.205.45.110 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT the correct merge target is Cosmic Era Mobile Units 132.205.45.110 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 132.205.45.110 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD is for registered users. Redxiv 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Details about fictional universes are not outside the purview of Wikipedia, and Gundam has a huge following. This is not something made up one day by bored schoolkids. Wikipedia is not paper, and these articles are doing no harm. Turnstep 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, at least four false arguments in a row: false dichotomy; no, it's fancruft obsessed over by bored schoolkids , but still a false dichotomy; irrelevent, and harm comes from clogging a resource with the pointless, trivial, and unencyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Transwiki. If there's an existing wiki for the otaku, let them have it. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. (posted in multiple discussion pages...) Golux Ex Machina 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series. Then nominate all Star Trek USS Enterprise articles for deletion per the non-justification section of the nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as other users have explained above. Lone Jobber 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abuse of "Wikipedia regulations" is a serious charge. Can you back it up? My talk page is open, if you have a serious problem you'd like to report. If you don't, please don't throw about such bombast again. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Kotepho. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a fansite. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Transwiki. None of these appear to be verifiable (WP:V), and there are no sources listed. In addition, the notability is highly questionable, and it is quite possible that there are copyvio issues. However, the nomination was done poorly. All of these should have been listed on one AfD. --Philosophus 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep MarineCorps 13:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Merge all units of the Dagger series. They all have specific sites now.

Rappapa 8:45 PM 28 April 2006

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.