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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Although its probably notable it lacks reliable sources WP:Reliable Dwanyewest (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I've recently listed this discussion, and so the five days should properly begin now. -Malkinann (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But number one doesn't apply at all. The nominator hasn't withdrawn and (even before me) there was a good faith argument to delete this article as it cited no reliable sources. Number one only applied if there are no delete votes AND the nominator has withdrawn. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objections about the "battleship in space" bit were merely to comment on the assertion that the battleship design itself represented some sort of epochal design that spurred other works. I submit that wasn't the case. It literally was the Yamato with fins, a nozzle in the rear and a wave gun in the front. The series is VERY important to anime. Probably in the top ten most important anime series ever. The sources I linked above help assert that fact. The battleship itself is not very important to the series (from an encyclopedic standpoint) and so I'm less sure that it is independently notable (of course, it is not notable under the WP:GNG so far...). Protonk (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you bother to look at the page? Actually, I shouldn't bother asking. I know you didn't, because that page, while itself a fansite, is a listing of primary and secondary sources, most or all of which are published works. Also, Dwayne, could you please figure out how to format your entries properly so you're not making the page look like a giant mess? It's not really that hard to figure it out even from just looking at what everyone else typed. Gelmax (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at it. first, citing a bibliography is unhelpful. That is a very informative external link, but nothing from that page was summarized to make this wikipedia article. furthermore, there has been no evidence that those works were about the battleship itself, rather than the series of the exact same name. What this article needs are reliable, independent sources that cover the battleship itself, not just the series. So far I don't see any. Protonk (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I've seen a half dozen people write that and not a single person mention a source with any indication that it covers the subject. AfD isn't cleanup but an article on an element of fiction without sources for two years is not a case for cleanup, it is a case for deletion. We have no agreed upon daughter guideline for fictional subjects. that means, in the absence of any community consensus, the applicable guideline for how the community treats these articles is the general notability guideline. That says that several sources have to cover the subject of the article in significant detail or we shouldn't have an article on it. Where are the sources that cover the subject in significant detail? I've gotten a lot of lectures about AfD not being cleanup but I haven't seen a single person mention a source that covers the battleship itself. I even (see above) dug through some google web, book and scholar searches and couldn't find sources that covered the battleship. Hopefully someone who is interested in the fate of the article can do a better job searching than I could. Until that happens I can report that my search found no sources which would make the subject notable. If it is the case that my search is the only search and the results are still NO sources covering the subject, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before this continues, I should probably address some assertions Protonk has made, because he appears not to have read the very policies he cites as reasons why this page should be deleted. First of all, he claimed that because the article was not created using the sources I cited, it's not notable even if those sources meet the requirements. This is an unfortunate confusion between notability and verifiability, and is explicitly addressed in Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. To put it simply and straightforwardly, notability requires simply that reliable sources exist, while verifiability requires that they're used in the creation of an article. Not fulfilling notability is grounds for deletion, but not fulfilling verifiability is simply grounds for cleanup. Since I was able to easily provide proof of notability, the poor sourcing of this article is merely a verifiability issue, which is not grounds for AfD and should simply be handled by editors. Protonk also claims that there is no specific notability guideline for fictional works, which I find odd because that's completely and utterly incorrect. In fact, according to the policy for the notability of fictional works, "notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work", and even if all the secondary sources I provided earlier don't devote themselves solely to discussing the Yamato, they definitely cover the spacecraft of Yamato in a significant degree of detail (as is obvious by the intent of the site that lists those works as its bibliography), so unless you're going to seriously try to claim that the space battleship Yamato is not an important element of Space Battleship Yamato, I think that settles the whole notability debate. Gelmax (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Well, let's start with WP:FICT. The tag at the top of that page says "Essay", and I should know, I've been involved with both an ill fated attempt to resurrect it and a request for comment on the nature of daughter guidelines in general. WP:FICT is a failed guideline proposal. It failed to reach consensus because the community couldn't agree on how to treat elements of fiction. Now let's talk about WP:V and WP:N. Notability applies to articles, not content, that is correct. Unless you are going to tell me that this article is a content element in another article, I don't think that proviso is important here. There is an argument to be made that a merger is a good idea, should this article not have any sources crop up. As a matter of fact, I don't care if someone boldy does it themselves. But the fact that there is an obvious parent doesn't make it so this article doesn't need sources, at least under the current community accepted guidelines. And, despite the hundreds of words exchanged here, we have not yet seen a single source which covers the subject of this article in significant detail. I'm aware that there is a webpage with a bibliography on it. Since the battleship itself and the series share a name, I am unwilling to just assume that the sources listed in the bibliography there apply to the ship, rather than the series. I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone comes along and says "Here are the sources, you were wrong", I'm happy to admit it. I'm not interested, however, in being told that I don't know the first thing about notability because I'm asking for some evidence that sources exist. This isn't a cleanup issue. A cleanup issue would be "the prose is bad" or "this reads like an avert" and so on. A lack of sources in the article (And I can only presume, a lack of sources elsewhere) isn't something I can just "clean up". So. I repeat my position. If someone links or provides some good evidence that a source discusses the battleship (not the series), I'm happy to change my vote to keep. I've done it a bunch of times in the past and I'm glad each time for the chance to have circumstance change my mind. All I'm asking in return is that people remain reasonable. A bibliography is not a source, especially where two subjects share a name. I have no way of knowing if that website compiled that information did so from those sources, and a perusal of the 'source' links on this page is not promising. I see a lot of lapsed domain names and tripod addresses. That doesn't mean that it is impossible for sources to exist, just that it is improbable that they do. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Gelmax before you go making suggestions maybe you should familiarize yourself obviously also with wikipedia's criterias. Such as sources which are self published such as fan sites. WP:SPSDwanyewest (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Protonk plus the article needs to satisfy wikipedia criteria for sources WP:PSTS

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Originally I believed this article was notable cause because I assumed the ship in question was the equivalent to the Starship enterprise. But this article lacks reliable third person information and on further investigation I believe this article fails under the criteria of excessive and useless info. WP:PLOT

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:29, 8 September 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.
Category