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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gantz equipment[edit]

List of Gantz equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable list of "equipment" used within the Gantz manga and anime series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Would also fail WP:FICT and contains an excessive amount of non-free images along with some WP:OR Self-admitted by creator that he restore of information that was properly removed from the main article in August for being excessive plot/in-universe detail and unnecessary to the series' overall understanding.[1][2][3] Removal had clear consensus,[4][5] but creator disagreed and made a new split, adding in additional information taken from the Gantz wiki and the images. Note, article has frequently been tagged for various issues ("owner" quickly removes any tags), and was prodded in October, but again the creator removed that as well under the claim of "I disagree. Post your reasons on the talk page and we'll discuse it though. A series with millions of fans will have a list of things in it, just as other popular series have." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no clear consensus. There was her and two others who agreed the article was too long, but did not answer my questions about whether they thought the content was valid. If the only reason against it was the length of the main page, then wikipedia policy is to make a side page for it. And it has plenty of references from the Anime, Manga, and the official Gantz Manual. Comic books/manga need only mention what issue and page something was mentioned on, not find a third party review for it. And if you tag something, you must state the reason for the tag, and discuss it. To which tag are you referring to? Collectonian was arguing with me on my user page, upset that I undid her deletion of something on the main Gantz article, she erasing it because she had never heard of the Gantz/Manual and decided instead of looking it up, she'd just erase that bit someone had added. After arguing back and forth, she suddenly nominates this page I created for deletion. I am a bit concerned of her motives. I vote KEEP of course. It is relevant to the extremely popular series, just as the episode lists, the chapter list page, and the character list page. Dream Focus (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were nice enough to point out during the argument that you had circumvented consensus and readded the content (proudly declaring it, even, that you had gotten around the valid removal by moving it elsewhere). And your questions were answered about the validity of the content, you just didn't like the answers so you readded the information in a "new" article a month later when attention had died down. You have already noted very clearly on your talk page that you do not care at all about Wikipedia's actual editing guidelines, and instead make articles to suit your own purpose: to be interesting for series fans, not Wikipedia readers, and for entertainment.[6] For those not wanting to read the lengthy talk page, my issue was not with his reverting the removal, but with his personal remarks posted to the article talk page and his snarky remarks in the edit summary, instead of just a quick and polite note saying "hey found it" on my talk page; and with his later messing up my citing the readded material presuming to "correct" me even though he, by his own admission, was uninformed as to how to use the cite web templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[7] The comment in question, where I asked her to look up information if she didn't believe the manual existed, instead of just deleting it. Someone please go there and tell me your opinions on that. And most of wikipedia's readers are here because they enjoy reading articles, not because they are required to learn anything about Anime, manga, or whatnot. And as I have said, the only reason it was removed, was because the article was too long. That's the same reason why the character list was removed, and placed on another page. Its the same thing here, since the equipment is as important as the characters, in this particular series. Dream Focus (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Character list splits are valid as per the Anime and manga MoS and consensus through AfD discussions. Additional fictional element lists are not. Equipment worn by characters, if relevant to major plot points, is covered in the plot summary. This is not the same as a character list. Equipment is not a character nor is it nearly as important as a character. And you seem to not be getting the point that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for fans of the series to learn more about it. And opinions on what? The content is now in the article, correctly written and sourced. Please stop trying to distract away from the actual issue of whether this list of equipment, which by your own admission is purely plot and has no third-party coverage meets the notability guidelines for existance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One new person merged things from the character list and the equipment page to the main page, which several people posted was wrong. You have to discuss mergers before making them happen. Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it still fails all notability guidelines and even cleaned up, it would completely fail WP:PLOT and WP:WAF as it has no third party coverage. Plus, it was already rejected as being invalid content in the main article. It can't be a sub-topic if it would never be allowed in the main article anyway. Even the Clow Cards of Cardcaptor Sakura failed these guidelines and the article was "deleted via redirection (as it was a very likely search term). This, doesn't even need a redirect as it isn't a likely search term.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the erasing of what the Clow Cards do. How can you understand the series, without knowing that? And this information was not rejected from being in the main article. After an edit revert incident you and I had, I posted for a third party opinion, and the two people that came over, said they agreed the article was too long, but didn't answer me when I asked about the content. If the consensus is that character pages are acceptable for series, but equipment pages are not(and there should be a set rule about this to avoid problems like this to begin with), then a brief mention of everything should be added back to the main Gantz article, since it is a key aspect of the series. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Dream Focus, he took parts of it from the Gantz wikia, so it may already be transwikied there in a way. Someone may want to check to see just how much is "some". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one doing most of the editing on the Gantz wikia, and created the equipment page there, after first creating it on the official wikipedia a month or so before. Someone else added the images there, which I took to use here, and copied over some minor changes I did there to the main wikipedia article. Why is this relevant? Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[All!] Ok delete this sucker! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not really concerned so much by who did it, but by the fact that it was done. The articles at the moment are word for word in most places, as if someone has been trying to keep it as a copy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a problem? The Wikia is just like the Wikipedia, except you can add in a lot more stuff. They even have a tag on the wikia to link to where on the wikipedia the original article was at. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the weasel words, not realizing there was a rule about that. I thought it only meant words used to insult someone. I disagree that anyone could understand what the series is about, without understanding the equipment. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't state anywhere how the H gun works, so another editor wrote that it seemed to use gravity... I suppose it could be reworded to state just what was shown, without the "weasel words". And how much should be included in the main article? Before hand, some claimed it made the article too long, thus the reason for a side page. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check WP:SIZE. At 60KB of proses you should split, at 100KB you must that is not the case here. --KrebMarkt 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Please say Bad/Worst example of WP:FANCRUFT instead of just fancruft as some fancruft can be trimmed & refined into something relevant & useful for Wikipedia. In that specific case it's Very Bad fancruft in the intent & realization.--KrebMarkt 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to preserve information many had worked on from the main page, which was deleted because someone thought it made the main article too long.Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been proven in several afnd's recently (even in a kept article), not all information needs preserving or should be present in the first place Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked the Gantz article. It's in pretty poor shape staring from the lead :( Meanwhile the list of equipment seems to have received more attention (woot pictures gallery)--KrebMarkt 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&diff=257022873&oldid=256689225 A new editor merged the character list and the equipment page back into the main article, which I undid. This merge was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gantz#Character_list and most were against it. And what tags are you referring to? I always explained my actions in the talk pages, and asked others to explain theres. Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um...the editor who merged those articles is far beyond a "new" editor. He has been here for years. And, as Dandy Sephy notes, merging bolding does not require consensus, and TTN is well known for doing them. The character list merge was strongly opposed by multiple editors, while only you opposed the equipment merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Equipments should have been put in a sub-section of plot, not as a section itself and even less as a section redirecting to a list; so does the rules of Gantz who deserved also a sub-section. A critical rule that dead player can be resurrected by another player willing to pay 100pts is missing. The plot should explain the nature of the two arch-arcs in the manga and how the stake evolved from a game to save oneself to a game to the world.--KrebMarkt 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my old Aspects of the Mission section for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&oldid=231192836 This also shows where the equipment list was at before being moved to a side page do to length. Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Why is a character page more valid to a series, than an equipment page?" suppossed to be a rhetorical question? Characters are a key element of a series, the entire series depends on the actions of characters. Entire series generally don't rely on a couple of pieces of equipment to tell their story. Policies may be "suggestions", but they are almost always proven to be correct and receive the backing of majoritys. Theres not a single keep in this nomination, you are clearly fighting an uphil battle and clutching at straws. I'm surprised this hasn't been closed already Dandy Sephy (talk)
It is not the backing of the majority. The overwhelming majority of people have never posted their say in the policy debate threads, and policy keeps on changing. Until there is an official election for all wikipedia users to vote on policy, you can't determine how many people support which ones. Its all determined by whatever people are around that day to vote on deleting something. And characters are one key aspect of a story, but not the only one. Any article could survive without more than a token mention of a few of the main characters in it, but we keep character list pages for now. Meanwhile other pages that also give useful information for a key aspect of the series, are deleted. Should the pages dedicated to space ships from popular science fiction series, or weapons and equipment from every series out there, be deleted simply because some feel them less valid than character pages? Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside wikipolitics, you're last claim falls flat on it's face in this context. Space ships from popular science fiction series are often notable (USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), USS_Voyager (Star Trek) for example), if not they are, or should be merged. Equipment from Gantz isn't notable, and you are the only person claiming it is. Each article is handled on a case by cases basis, this one isn't in your favour Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek Some series can have weapons list, others can not. It depends on how many fans of the series are around. There is no difference between the Gantz equipment list, and the list of Star Trek weapons. You shouldn't be able to simply delete something, because there aren't as many people around to protest. Dream Focus (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which also has a newspaper article as a reference. However the existence of that page holds no relevance in this discussion, both articles have their issues (many are the same), so you'll find no benefit from trying to use it in your defense. You seem to have no time for wikipedia policy or guidelines, and you're making a lot of questionable claims. Firstly you can't "just delete something", thats the whole point of AFD. There are plenty of people to protest as the AFD is located in the same place as all the other afds, even though it appears in the Anime and manga afd list, it still appears in the master list and in the fiction list. That no one is protesting should be a sign, and all this this is getting pretty tiresome. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (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.
More