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 merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (mobile suit)[edit]

Leo (mobile suit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lengthy in-universe discussion of the properties of fictional suits of armor. Seems to be a game guide of sorts. No outside sourcing demonstrating real-world notability. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no opinion one way or the other, but even a cursory look at the article indicates that it relates to a recurring adversary type in an anime TV series, not a game. Thus, it cannot be any sort of "game guide". --Ig8887 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed -- it says anime in the first sentence. (What did you think that was?) It's definitely weak from the standpoint of WP:FICT, but I assume there are people out there who can judge how improvable it is better than I can. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete single lengthy reference from a fansite isn't "significant coverage", hence article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge so long as the references that Mythsearcher refers to are present in the merged entry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Again, "as seen in." Well, there are many things to be invented by people paid to add details to commercial fiction, and there are even more things invented by fans with imagination. If this is not critical, then it is unimportant, and if it is a detail in a fiction, then we're way past inclusion. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep/merge According to talk page: "This article was nominated for deletion on 30 Jan 2007. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to List of Mobile Suits of Gundam Wing." -Verdatum (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, looking at histories, a Template:mergeto tag was added to the article. For some reason it was merged very briefly but then undone. I've made inquiries as to why this was, but have yet to see a response. I suspect it was just a simple oversight. Once the AfD closes, I can do the merge if as the original closer suggested, "editors experienced with this topic should do the actual merge". FYI, Similar issue with Virgo (mobile suit). -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, tag for cleanup, possibly merge Nom did not read the article. No policies are cited as a reason for deletion. Claims of a lack of sources and references are false as can be discovered with a rudimentary examination of the article. This needs a bit of work, but it's hardly unsalvageable (at worst it can be merged into the various "List of" articles that WP:Gundam uses for things not noteable enough for their own article. I should further note that this AfD is miscategorized (it should be under Fiction and the arts rather than Games and Sports)Jtrainor (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the nominator may not have cited a policy, but the article doesn't meet WP:N or WP:FICT, and doesn't have any other assertion of notability - so it's still correct to delete it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this editor should refrain from such violations of WP:AGF by retracting the statement "Nom did not read the article."GundamsRus (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:AGF specifically says that it does not mean other editors are immune to criticism. When the nominator decribes something as a 'game guide' when it's clearly mentioned as part of an anime is clear indication that the nominator either did not read or did not understand the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not retracting anything. And I'm not going to do anything a sockpuppet asks me to, either. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, guys, would it help if I apologized? I didn't comprehend what the article was about, but I knew it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. There are a few articles that got recreated with the same content after merging. Like the AGX-04 Gerbera Tetra and White Base which I figured some new comer or anon account accursed me of eating the whole article without permission. Just merge it per the consensus here into the list, forget about the AfD process. Also, people here who voted or is about to vote a delete because it is fictional material should get themselves familiar with this page and the Approach section of this page. MythSearcher^talk 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's a difference between deleting because it's fiction, and deleting because it's fiction without coverage. This is the latter. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I understand that, but as a matter of practice, there are a lot of people from previous AfDs who fail to see the difference. You are obviously not the case but it is always good to remind people of it before things get ugly. I will change my word to reflect this. MythSearcher^talk 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply fair enough. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Finish the job from the last AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per the last Afd. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge per Mythsearcher. Haven't we done this before? MalikCarr (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the people voting "same as before" - I'd remind them that that isn't a strong argument (see WP:NOTAGAIN) and ask them whether they think that multiple secondary sources could be found to support the suit's inclusion in wikipedia, here or on a merged list. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Super Robot Wars could be a secondary source, since it is not from the same company, yet they got a short description of the units included within the game. As for primary sources, I would suggest the official site. MythSearcher^talk 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply a game which features the suit would be a primary source, and notability requires multiple secondary sources. Mecha Anime HQ looks like one; are there more? Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply a game that features units from multiple anime, games and manga with a mecha encyclopedia that states the origin of each unit is secondary. The secondary part comes from the fact that it states the origin of the unit from an out of game perspective, like in this case, the entry of the this Leo unit states that its appearance is from Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. Also, it is by Banpresto, not Sunrise. They need to get copyright permissions from other companies to add units into the game. MAHQ is always quoted as not being a reliable source since it is a fan site, although the same info could be sourced from primary sources like the official web site and MS encyclopedia, somehow people still don't take MAHQ as a WP:RS. MythSearcher^talk 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I think I see. How much secondary coverage does the game devote to the suit? Is it just listing where it's from, or is there more? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply It lists the origin of the unit with a short description. Usually the description contains a little of what it does in the original story(For example, Leo is a grunt unit) and a little plot summary. For a more important unit(like one piloted by a main character), the description will usually be longer. MythSearcher^talk 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply OK. Sounds borderline for an article, but sufficient for a minor topics list entry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't believe WP:NOTAGAIN completely applies here. A ruling was made and it just wasn't carried out; it was an oversite. Granted concensus can change and the articles may have changed. But I believe it would be better to merge the article, and then ask if the list of mobile suits belongs. (Personally, I believe it does due to the recent changes of WP:FICT allowing summary style articles to extend a main article.) But again, I feel it is beyond the scope of this discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (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.