Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_mobile_weapons except for ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, and ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam which as pointed out are sourced and to which I have therefore applied Merge tags. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAT-01 Strike Dagger

edit
GAT-01 Strike Dagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating all of these Mobile Suit Gundam SEED fictional weapon articles for deletion, as the subject of each one fails WP:GNG due to the lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:PLOT, these articles are inappropriate as they purely plot-only description of content. The list of these fictional weapons was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, so merging to a list is not an option as there is a recent consensus that a stand-alone list of these weapons would not be appropriate.

In these following debates individual articles on said fictional weapons have been deleted unanimously:

Although I dislike mass-nominations, the overriding consensus in these discussions that these articles should be deleted has made me feel that it would be wasting contributors time to debate the rest of them individually.

The articles:

-Anthem 19:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revert sockpuppet nomination  Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series, which I am aware of. As you can see, most of the articles which were nominated for deletion in it have since been deleted - I'm pooling the remaining ones here. Anthem 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've already had a deletion debate on List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons at WIkipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons and it was decided that there were not suitable third party sources to cover it. If you really want to "restore" the list, take it to deletion review. You can't really have it undeleted as a result of an independent deletion debate which doesn't involve the original participants - that would be abuse of process. Anthem 05:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm considering sending that AfD to DRV because there was clearly no consensus to delete, especially in the face of 12 reliable thrid-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the others a side, Impulse, Red frame, Freedom and Strike Freedom should all have at least 3 model magazines (Dengeki Hobby, Hobby Japan, Model Graphix, all independent sources) extensively and in multiple times, mentioning them, I am also quite sure that The Great Mechanics series mentioned them at least once; others, appeared at least once in each of these magazines. The Freedom article even listed a Japanese stamp collection. Actually, I am pretty sure the Freedom got quite some mention in some gaming magazines due to its imbalance power in Gundam Vs Gundam series game that made it a unit that players tend to use or ban, like the AWP in Counter-Strike. I failed to see how at least this article not meeting the GNG. I mentioned the past AfD because the last time, deletionists ruled out all magazines that are anime related saying them not being 3rd party/independent with no policy or guideline backing their claim, I have no intention and motivation to start yet another long and tedious argument where after I list actual sources, deletionists just insist they cannot be used. Also, I don't really like the SEED series and I literally hate SEED-D with passion so I am only here to witness yet another fruitless debate in Wikipedia. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag it Sorry, Mythsearcher, but it's a better use of your time to just work on Gundam articles on the Gundam wikia. Doing so here is largely a waste of time. Jtrainor (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Striking my vote out of spite. This is clearly not a good faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • duhh... I think this kind of comment are among those making editors not staying in Wikipedia and having them not recommending friends and relatives to contribute to it. Contents may not be relevant to Wikipedia, rarely an editor is not. Besides this can be also perceive as "the best way to win an argument in Wikipedia, is to have your opponents leave Wikipedia"... --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an expanded, but not comprehensive, list of potential sources that I originally presented at WIkipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. As you can see, there is plenty of coverage for a list of mobile weapons of the series, which the articles in this nomination should be merged to per WP:BEFORE.
  1. Fargo, Paul (March 3, 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED". Anime News Network.
  2. Fargo, Paul (August 15, 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny DVD 1". Anime News Network.
  3. Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15. (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
  4. Kimlinger, Carl (May 6, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny: Final Plus DVD". Anime News Network.
  5. Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
  6. Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21. (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
  7. Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29. (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
  8. Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
  9. Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
  10. Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
  11. Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39. (Features Destiny Gundam)
  12. Konoh, Arata (January 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Destiny Calls". Newtype USA. 6 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–35. (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
  13. Martin, Theron (January 23, 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed X Astray Vol. 1". Anime News Network.
  14. Martin, Theron (September 30, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny TV Movie II". Anime News Network.
  15. Santos, Carlo (September 12, 2005). "Gundam Seed the Movie: The Empty Battlefield". Anime News Network.
  16. Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
  17. Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
  18. Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
  19. Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.

—Farix (t | c) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these meet WP:RS. There's absolutely no indication that any of these anime magazines and websites have the editorial processes and policies which, say, a national news organization or a mainstream academic publications have. Unless you can show evidence that these sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I'm really not going to buy into this. Anthem 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANN's and THEM Anime's reviews has passed several discussions at WP:ANIME and WP:RSN and have been used in several Featured Articles. Newtype USA was a nationally published magazine and carried in by most book retailers and newsstands containing articles translated from the original Japanese Newtype and additional American-based content. As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, sources do not have the be "mainstream" or "academic", which are both extremely subjective terms, in order to be a reliable source. It seems that your completely denial of these sources is based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't like them. It's just that I don't think they are reliable, and you haven't really given me any evidence that they are suitable sources to substantiate notability. If you really think you can, write a proper list about these in userspace with a ton of citations to your legion of reliable sources, and isn't just plot only coverage, and bring it to WP:DRV. All the current content is frankly terrible - I don't know why you think it would be of any help to you at all. Anthem 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are very much reliable and have passed previous challenges (see WP:A&M/ORS). You have to show they they are somehow unreliable. As for WP:PLOT, that is an issue that can be fixed through editing by adding real-world relevance. Also WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE states to salvage articles and content when possible instead of outright deleting them. Neither these articles nor the list are completely unsalvageable, even if they are "terrible". The sources I've provided demonstrate that much. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that all the burden concerning the sources lies on you, as does the responsibility to sort out the articles. Unless you demonstrate the sources are reliable and these articles can be fixed, deletion is the answer. Anthem 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANN' news and reviews have already been established to be reliable sources through multiple discussions (Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N Discussion), and THEM Anime reviews also meets the criteria as a reliable source because excerpts from their reviews have been republished by other sources (Project discussions: 1). Newtype USA was published by A.D. Vision under license from Kadokawa Shoten, one of the largest Japanese publishing companies, until February 2008. The original Newtype is one of the largest anime magazines in Japan with a circulation of 133,750 last year.[1] Claiming that it is unreliable is like stating that GamePro is unreliable for video game news and reviews because they are "nitch" publications. That should be all the proof you need that these sources are reliable. Also, you are the one that needs to prove that the articles are completely unsalvageable in the presents of a long list of reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus as to whether it's a reliable source can change. The outcome of this debate will speak for itself. There are plenty of other publications (such as The Sun, for instance), which have editorial boards and offer internships and have large circulations, but fail WP:RS. It has been cited by other anime sources, which to me suggests more that their reliability should be questioned. Anthem 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you will never by convened that these sources are reliable because they don't fit into your arguments. The strange thing is, these sources have a much better track records for accurate reporting than the New York Times. —Farix (t | c) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft, prove it. Even if so, it's because they essentially reprint plot details from a fictional work. They're not really secondary sources. Anthem 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's obvious that these articles are wanted by a certain segment of the population, but the precedent and consensus elsewhere is clear: these sources are not sufficient, and coverage of the subject is entirely based in plot summary. We need more than that. I'd have no prejudice with recreation of the articles if recreation entailed a balanced view of only those subjects that have real-world notability. — chro • man • cer  16:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"sources are not sufficient" in what ways? —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not sufficient to establish notability for each individual bit of technology in this television series. The sources you've provided would be sufficient provide detail to Mobile weapons, which already exists. They are not sufficient to create one article for every single device ever featured in the series and its spinoff media. I'm not going to be dragged into arguments of sophistry here. Treating each individual device as a notable topic in and of itself is a ludicrous proposition, and previous consensus agreed that sources were not sufficient even for a combined treatment of all this fictional technology. Again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. — chro • man • cer  21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refocus Can participants refocus on the subject of the discussion which is whatever GAT-01 Strike Dagger & others fictional elements received "individually" sufficient credible & that have weight toward specific or broad audience coverage to warrant an article within Wikipedia and not whatever xyz sources is reliable. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anthem, your particular behaviour and attitude is exactly what spawned the AfD from hell. Your single-manned repeated refusal to accept sources being reliable does not mean they are not. There are no reliable sources for almost all anime, manga, comic, fictional stories with your standard for sources. Newtype is one of the most prominent anime magazines in Japan, other magazines listed are also very dominant as well. Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources yourself: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Your claim of consensus can change is not only theoretical, but also proves your failure to respect wikipedia's consensus, at least in this particular process. If you have problem with the reliability of sources that passed RSN, you should bring it up there instead of refusing to accept the current consensus just on the basis of "it can change". It shows your WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance pretty much to the book. You kept saying others have to prove it reliable, yet you provide no standard and you have no authority and knowledge in this particular field to judge. Also, the burden of providing a rigid standard that meets wikipedia policies is YOURS, you also need to prove any of the sources you claim to be not reliable as questionable sources as Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The sources listed are seldom poor reputed and is generally accepted in the community, thus it is you that are making the accusation, and as the accuser, you need to prove your view. Also, you need to prove that consensus has indeed changed as it is your claim, when past consensus speaks otherwise, you also need to prove the magazines reprint plot details, since very obviously the ones using them as sources will very likely say it is not the case. Your last two reply up there is really just WP:POINT, which sounded really rude and disrespect of wikipedia's policy on consensus and others, which, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to change the closing admin's view on the issue, if not discrediting your attitude and became less favour to your views. If you are not going to accept anything at all, we get your point, you got your point across, VERY WELL, so let us get to something more constructive instead of having the delusion of conceiving any hope of convincing the inconvincible, and have another train wreck discussion of us facing the wall which nothing gets through to your side yet you keep replying things stating you are not going to take any point at all, you can just save your replies unless you have something new to say. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr. All I can say is that my response to the claim that an anime magazine has better editing policies than a major national newspaper is indicative of my credulity with respect to that claim. Anthem 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's recap what you said BEFORE that: None of these meet WP:RS. There's absolutely no indication that any of these anime magazines and websites have the editorial processes and policies which, say, a national news organization or a mainstream academic publications have. This is 1) blatantly assuming bad faith; 2) calling major magazines in this particular field of topics that predates the said material by at least a decade if not two not creditable; 3) continue to refuse to accept the current consensus built around these sources even after you were told. Whether the anime magazines have better editing policies than major national newspaper? Let me tell you these, 1) since the otaku or fanboys if you prefer a more disrespectful term have more concern in the field than regular newspaper readers, people will know when these sources made mistakes and the editors of such magazines very careful not to offend them; 2) magazines do not have as tight a time constraint as newspapers, and thus have more time to fact check; 3) We are talking about notability about fictional items/characters here, the main facts about notability is highly likely reported from these kind of sources; 4) you still did not answer how did you interpret having a stamp of its own] being not notable and not reliable. The source is directly from the Japanese Post, the official postage department. Failure to answer at least number 4 showed your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF position. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ironic to say the least that you're accusing me of not acting in good faith......incidentally, I actually like Gundam, I just don't think we need all these fan-crufty lists. Anthem 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need all of these articles as well, especially all these articles even if notable, need some major rewrite/revamp anyway, possibly meaning removing over 90% of the current contents and adding contents with reliable sources. That is why I did not cast my !vote on any stance yet, at least as of now and am only giving comments and asking essential questions to your comments. But obviously, you do not bother answering policy related questions that are directly related to this AfD process, and a straight denial of all sources being reliable, even including the Japan Post itself. It does not matter if you like Gundam or not, you did not show it and it is all just your own allegation, I do not have to believe it nor disprove it to advance my arguments. Iit is your straight denial without basis and attitude of refusal to discuss about the reliability and credibility that makes you (at least look very much like) assuming bad faith. Like I said, you have your POV, we know it, you will NOT accept anything anime related, even government organization websites as reliable, end of discussion from your side, we get it, your point came across VERY well. I understand there is no point in getting you to explain it, probably most of the others here understand that as well. So don't bother replying if you are not going to change your attitude and start answering questions constructively, if you think there is nothing wrong about it, ESPECIALLY if you think there is nothing wrong about it. Why explain something you think is right? The closing admin is going to see your repeated denial in the very early stages, and if you think you are correct about it, you can completely ignore my comments and questions, since you should be very confident that the closing admin will take your side if you are so sure that you are correct. On the other hand, if you felt shaken, and must reply to my questions, that means you yourself suspect your POV and that means you should probably answer my questions with actual facts, instead of just giving repeated empty denials, to harden your grounds. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to infer notability from the fact a government has issued a stamp with a fictional character on it. If you could summarize your arguments into 50 words or so, I might be able to provide a counterargument. Anthem 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A simple answer, I am talking about your statement of not reliable, instead of just notability. So your answer simply meant you ignore an essential part of the question. And, no, it is not original research to infer notability from the fact that a government has issued a stamp with a fictional character on it, it is the fact that the government did so with such characters that are notable and not any random character, each page of the stamp series contained short description of the theme. Of course this is not as notable as the First Gundam, which got its appearance in this stamp series and a full set of 10 stamps on its own, but still, you have a stamp for X-wing, M. Falcon, but not the A-wing, B-wing nor the Tie-Bomber, not even the Tie-Fighter. This is simple enough of a common sense that you only make stamps with fictional characters if they have some sort of prominence. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination. As pointed out in the nomination, none of these fictional weapons meets the general notability guideline. Most of the nominated articles do not provide references and, with no reliable third-party sources, there is no reason to keep these articles. A quick search engine test shows no indication that any article about these fictional mobile suits can be anything different from a plot-only description of a fictional work, which is what most of these articles are. The exceptions would be ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, which appear to show some real-world context in their articles, but, checking them in detail, it seems that they derive information from the TV series, taking plot and promotional campaign information instead of providing reliable secondary sources that give significant coverage to the fictional mobile suits; the real-world context provided amounts only to popularity in a sales catalog and the articles cite primary sources or a fansite to provide extra details, so there is no reason to keep them either. There are several reliable sources for the Gundam SEED series but the fictional mobile suits, either individually or as a group, have not shown that there are reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, reception and significance for them, which makes them merely redundant content forks of the plot and unnecessary splits of the main Gundam SEED articles. Jfgslo (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion might want to be kept open for two weeks pending consensus here as the DRV result could have a direct impact on a result. I myself am waiting for the results of the DRV before I weigh in on this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, especially as a lot of the discussion here hasn't actually focused on the articles but on the process of deleting the list, which is now being discussed there. --Anthem 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is restored it will be presumably as an overturn to no consensus. In that case, there's probably going to be another AFD debate in the near future. --Anthem 15:10, 11 June 2011 (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/GAT-01_Strike_Dagger&oldid=1221041660"