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. the delete arguments are the most policy based reasons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bloody Valentine War[edit]

Second Bloody Valentine War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a long plot summary of an event in an anime series with no out of universe information or sources. Furthermore, it reads as if it was an actual event, not a fictional one. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gundam Seed Destiny. Also, please note this has been at AfD once before under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloody_Valentine_War. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I can see how a section growing too large would be an issue, there shouldn't be so much plot information to begin with. The article is a large plot summary of Gundam Seed Destiny, which doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article clearly needs improvement, the subject is a reasonable spinout article to keep the Gundam Seed Destiny article from growing too large. Failing that, Merge to Gundam Seed Destiny. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see this going beyond in-universe. No prejudice against a merge.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, Bloody Valentine War was redirected to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED#Plot back in August and I'm unaware of any complaints since then, so a similar treatment should work fine for this article. Also note that the above linked AFD took place in 2006. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The last afd [1] had some convincing arguments in it. This is part of a series that has been successfully growing for for decades now. This event is notable in its universe, affecting the anime series(one series dedicated entirely to it, 50 episodes), toy line, manga, and books. I'm not sure if any video games have this war featured in it or not. It isn't just some passive back story used once and forgotten. It affected the entire Gundam universe. Dream Focus 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out above, the last AfD happened in 2006. Consensus can change, and certainly has in three years. The article as it stands now is pure plot summary, presented as a real event, with neither hide nor hair of development, production, reception, real-world impact, or even references (the one "reference" in the article is actually an unreferenced note), despite being tagged for a year for these and other issues. It doesn't matter how important this is within the Gundam universe because notability is not inherited, and for the record, this only directly affected the Gundam SEED timeline, not "the entire Gundam universe". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Those objections all seem to be quality issues (mentioning development, production, real-world impact, encyclopedic tone.) Certainly they are important, but I'm not sure they have bearing on deletion. Quality can be improved over time, as per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DEADLINE. -moritheil^Talk 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no idependent sources discuss this topic at all, certainly not at the level that would make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates WP:NOTPLOT as an extensive plot summary of Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny with no scholarly analysts or critical commentary. —Farix (t | c) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge critical content only and Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny per Dinoguy1000 above. G.A.S^talk 06:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fictional plot treated as real life events :( Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny plot section. Some elements could re-used in the episodes list summaries and the chapters list summaries. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. DBZROCKS seems to already have done the redirect without waiting for the AfD to be closed. -moritheil^Talk 07:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per previous AfD. - Plau 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Because it has been kept in a previous AfD is not a valid argument for keeping the article at a later AfD. Especially with the substantial number of policy violating problems this article has. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor meant "keep per the convincing reasons given at the previous AFD." Nothing has changed since then. And it might violated the suggested guidelines, but no policy was broken. Dream Focus 11:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps when the commenter states what the reasons are for keeping the article. Otherwise, it's just a vote. Also, there are several policies that the article is violating, most of which are outlined above. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous AFD, as I have said *twice* now, happened three years ago. This article may once have been fine for Wikipedia, but that is simply no longer the case. In order for the article to remain, it must be drastically changed, including a clear demonstration of the subject's notability - this is the largest issue facing the article, and one which hasn't even begun to be addressed. An AFD for this issue is perfectly acceptable. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per WP:NOTPAPER, poor article quality is not on its own valid grounds for deletion. Articles can be improved over time. -moritheil^Talk 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - The article was improperly redirected for 36 hours during this debate. It was restored at 08:00 on 25/10. I am only clarifying and not making a judgment about a possible effect on this discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to Gundam Seed Destiny. This is all unsourced, so there is nothing to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source is presumably the work itself, as is normal for works of fiction or TV shows. -moritheil^Talk 05:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article clearly has tone and style issues and could benefit from at least rewriting. However, what is astonishing to me as an observer is the behavior of those involved in this discussion. A number of invalid or questionable arguments were put forth above, the article was turned into a redirect for 36 hours, and all in all this AfD phase has run roughshod over normal deletion procedure and criteria. I am not stating that the article should or should not be deleted, only noting that the discussion above has repeatedly moved far afield of actual deletion issues such as notability. There have been valid arguments both for and against deletion, but the invalid ones seem for some reason to all be for deletion. (If you accept Farix's argument that Plau's statement is too brief to be valid, then there is one invalid argument against deletion.) I cannot account for this under WP:FAITH, and I find it troubling. -moritheil^Talk 08:33, 27 October 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.