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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Valentine War and Second Bloody Valentine War

[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fictional wars from a Japanese cartoon that involves battles between huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders. Part of a huge walled garden I am nominating for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam Delete It's already there. No assertion of notability for something general like Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already there. Brian G. Crawford 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki as they were copy/paste moved there. GFDL problems. Kotepho 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Kotepho Delete per Danny Lilithborne —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 01:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (changed to delete —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 01:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC))realized I don't know enough about Gundam to determine notability. For the record, the nom's word choice does bother me —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Lundse 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single fictional timeline including ones of Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We probably would, wouldn't we? :D Danny Lilithborne 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Star Wars is one of the most succesful movie franchises ever, and even that is over-represented. This isn't. Not notable enough for this level of detail/anal-retentiveness. -- GWO
- Comment. Gundam is a genre-defining franchise that's been produing new installments for nearly 30 years. It's clearly a notable subject, and I fail to see how very brief listings of the events in a fictional timeline qualifies as "anal-retentive". Redxiv 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gundamcruft. If it means creating a precedent to clean out some Starwarscruft and Trekcruft as well, all the better. — Haeleth Talk 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, look like very strong articles about an aspect of a notable series. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment Being related to something notable does not make something notable. Fagstein 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As I said in another of his AfD nominations, Brian G. Crawford's declaration that he wants to purge everything Gundam-related from Wikipedia smacks of bad faith to me. Redxiv 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm unsure what is prima facie bad faith about an editor's assertion that a separate article for every single bleeding individual weapon system ever featured in a Gundam spinoff involves massive NN ubercruft -- a position with which I happen to agree. What I think is bad faith is claiming he wants to purge every Gundam-related article from Wikipedia. The source for this, please? RGTraynor 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A single user deciding he'll go on a one-man crusade against a subject he's too unfamiliar with to tell what's notable and what's not seems like bad faith to me. And he's admitted that he wants to wipe out the Gundam articles. He said as much in his cluster of AfDs. Also, his methodology seems disengenuous to me. He's arbitrarily grouped articles together for mass AfDs, but logically the should all be in a single AfD. The debate is over whether any articles along the lines of the ones nominated should exist, not over any specific article. The impression I get is that he's going for a shotgun approach. If he succeeds in getting some of these articles deleted, even if others survive AfD, he'll use the deleted ones as precedent for a new round of AfDs. Redxiv 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Setting precedents for future actions? Why the nerve of the guy! I also understand that Brian G. Crawford hates puppies and kittens, and kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
    - (BTW, "The source for this, please?" means a request to provide a source of a statement, not to repeat it using more words.) --Calton | Talk 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought much the same myself, come to that. There's a lot of "said as much" and "seems like" in Redxiv's reply, and not a lot of actual fact in the heap of inferences ... never mind complaining that this isn't in one giant AfD, given the complaints about giant AfDs. Should we start speculating about the lack of good faith of the Gundam crowd in passionately defending each and every article, no matter how trivial (an article for every individual weapon system?!?) and launching unprovoked personal attacks? This would work a great deal more smoothly if there was less "he's out to GET US" rhetoric and more focusing on the merits of the argument. RGTraynor 13:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and make a comment in a Cosmic Era chronology article. 132.205.45.110 19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD is for registered users. Redxiv 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Untrue. Kotepho 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not only untrue but inflammatory. WP:AfD if you need a refresher, Redxiv. RGTraynor 13:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really like the elitist attitude that some registered users have towards anons. Like it proves you're better because you have an ego that needs assuaging by getting an account and then denigrating others who don't bother. 132.205.45.148 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's borderline but I think it's notable. Ginkgo100 19:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)User has 14 edits, the last four since Oct 2005 are to related AfDs.[reply]
Strong Keep: This pretty much has the entire story of Gundam Seed and the information is controlled well enough that it is not excessive. Adv193 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article in question outlines a cannonical event of critical significance to one of the most prolific and lasting science fiction series of all time. Supporting a motion to delete this article demonstrates a severe lack of perspective uppon the part of the supporter. It is also clear, to this humble anonymous user, that the article in question was specificaly selected by orrigional poster because of its significance, in the hopes that he may urge it quickly to deletion, and use it as a precident to delete other significant articles, creating a vacumous void with more lasting power than simply removing all the text and saving it. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's [DbaD] policy, and I sincerily hope my fellow users will recognize it as such.--72.140.12.15 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, it's not even linked to from the Gundam article. Fagstein 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is linked from Mobile Suit Gundam SEED though, which is the main article on this gundam story. Kotepho 18:38, 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. Golux Ex Machina 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No assertion of notability. Few people care about the fictional storyline, and those that do will go to the wiki specially designed for it. Hence, it has no use here. Fagstein 07:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! It is dates and tech specs from a fictional universe. I am all for fictional universes and their place on wikipedia, but not the details and specs of individual machines in them - there are places for this, where the fans who want to know and add to these things go, cf. my transwiki vote above.
Keep. There isn't anything wrong with material from fictional universes. The level of detail of these pages doesn't bother me. I only wish that every article on Wikipedia was this detailed. NoIdeaNick 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we delete this article we would have to delete a lot more. Diabound00 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as other users have explained above. Lone Jobber 06:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note user's only edits are to Gundam-related AfDs. Fagstein 03:24, 28 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 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo! Spoken like a true intellectual!--71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note user's only edits are to Gundam-related AfDs. Fagstein 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- If you delete all this, you'll have to delete many (or perhaps even ALL) of the Star Trek and Star Wars articles, claiming they too should just get their own little Wiki like the rest of the, "FanCruft", I believe is the word? Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to be a treasure trove of knowledge on almost ANY subject that anyone can add to and enhance, these Wikis are nothing more than the culmination of hard work from various fans. And finally, just because someone else made their own Wiki doesn't mean that any and all articles on the subject of the Fan-Wiki should be deleted from the real Wikipedia, this is a strawman arguement. If I created a Wiki that chronicled the works of Jules Verne, does that mean you'd delete any and all info Wikipedia has on Mr. Verne's fine works? Did not think so. --71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Star Trek does have its own wiki, and Star Trek articles are nominated for deletion and deleted or merged on a regular basis. It's not that we don't want articles on fictional subjects. But those fictional subjects have to be notable, meaning they have to have been referenced by reliable, third-party sources. The Star Trek wiki (MemoryAlpha) was created precisely for this reason, because a lot of hard-core fans were writing articles that were obscure even within the Star Trek universe. Fagstein 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There's a lot of ppl out there who care about this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.49.153 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep- The Information are relevant and not too excessive. And they are correct.202.156.6.54 05:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This opinion will likely not be counted if it's unsigned. Fagstein 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, many useful explanation. In similar opinion with NewtypeS3. Draconins 08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since they're already at the wikia page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could have fooled me... Iceberg3k 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - Gundam is an important series in anime history and I don't see the purpose in deleting an article discussing a fictional war within the storyline. I find the article informative and useful. Also, deleting this and not deleting every other fictional timeline on Wikipedia would be nothing more than pure hypocrisy.--Pkmatrix 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This opinion will likely not be counted if it's unsigned. Fagstein 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it would be possible I would like to know Mr. Crawford's reasons for deleting this article. The Gundam series is a very successful and old series. It is more popular than most anime out there. So why are we trying to delete something that is viewed by its hundreds of thousand fans. This article is very informative despite it being a made up show about "anthropomorphic robots with japanese swords" (extreme paraphrase). Please Administrators do not delete this article just because of one sour person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben Ortiz (talk • contribs)
- No personal attacks please. You clearly disagree with the nomination, and your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. Fagstein 03:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on whether this article should be kept or deleted. I will say that the "car fender" comments in the nomination are unhelpful, irrelevant, and do not help the impression that this nomination and others like it are based on personal dislike of the subject rather than an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I'll also echo Iceberg3k's comment above, in that the vast majority of Brian G. Crawford's contributions consist of participating in the deletion proccess, often times supporting the deletion of articles on fictional characters and the like. Frankly, it disturbs me, and I hope very much that this user's conduct changes to a drastic degree.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Gundam is a highly verfiable, notable, and revalant to the topic. If you delete this, than all other fictional conflicts would have to be delted as well. How can you understand a series if you have no context of it? What's the War in star wars? Why is Starfleet going arround and doing stuff? Without this context, the reader will have little idea what the point of the series, or why it is important. --Eldarone 18:25, 30 April 2006 (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.