| Revision as of 07:19, 10 June 2010 editFleetCommand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,812 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Jclemens identified as vandalism to last revision by Snottywong. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:15, 10 June 2010 edit undoFleetCommand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,812 editsm Minor fixNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| *Google news shows results, and it not hard to find reliable news sources that mention that Robotech was released as a merger of these unrelated series. The information is all verifiable, and gets ample coverage everywhere. ]''' 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | *Google news shows results, and it not hard to find reliable news sources that mention that Robotech was released as a merger of these unrelated series. The information is all verifiable, and gets ample coverage everywhere. ]''' 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| **Well, this article is neither about Robotech nor the splicing of the series. So, I'm afraid what Google News shows is of very little significance here. Besides, you are |
**Well, this article is neither about Robotech nor the splicing of the series. So, I'm afraid what Google News shows is of very little significance here. Besides, you are now advocating conversion of this "article" into a disambiguation page, aren't you? ] (]) 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| <hr style="width:50%;" /> | <hr style="width:50%;" /> | ||
| :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->] | :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->] | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' per the reasons given by the nominator. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per nom, this article is not needed. - ] (]) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom, this article is not needed. - ] (]) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Turn into a ]''' Whether the three ''Super Dimension'' series are related to each other, what cannot be disputed is that all three have "Super Dimension" in their titles. It would make more sense then to turn this article into a formal disambiguation page if the rest of the information cannot be sourced. —''']''' (] | ]) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | *'''Turn into a ]''' Whether the three ''Super Dimension'' series are related to each other, what cannot be disputed is that all three have "Super Dimension" in their titles. It would make more sense then to turn this article into a formal disambiguation page if the rest of the information cannot be sourced. —''']''' (] | ]) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 10 June 2010
Super Dimension
AfDs for this article:- Super Dimension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is nothing but a pseudo-category page that categorizes three other completely unrelated articles!!! Even if such pages needed categorizing, a category page in Category namespace would have sufficed. Speedy-delete or transfer to Category namespace. Fleet Command (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Template:ARSnote
- Comment what do you mean completely unrelated? It's about a branding by the producers to promote their product. Sure you could say that a Chevrolet Geo is completely unrelated to a Corvette, but they have the same branding, so an article on Chevy would be reasonable. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's what the article itself confess: Unrelated. Now, if you feel you have a problem with it, then joint the club! I have a problem with it too! Fleet Command (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment there's something wrong with the list of previous AfDs. "Super Dimension Fortress" is a different article, with different topic matter. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. But it seems nothing can be done about it. Fleet Command (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep They reuse the same theme probably recycle some characters, retelling the story again. Gundam and others do the same thing in their universes. This way people can link to which of the three notable series they are looking for, and know the series was redone three times already, and see what else is there. Dream Focus 09:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, Dream Focus, but have you ever heard of notability? The subject of similarity of the names between these three UNRELATED titles' fails to meet Misplaced Pages Notability guideline, that is, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not merit a standalone article. That's just one of the many policies that this article violates. Essentially, this article sail very close to Criteria A3 for Speedy Deletion. By all means, go ahead and put the matter on other articles, but this so-called "Article" thing is not even category, let alone article!
Now, dear Dream Focus, I'm really starting to think whether what you mean was irony!
Fleet Command (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)- It links to other pages, this a valid search term. People search for Super Dimension, there are three pages they could be looking for, so a disambiguation page is fine. Dream Focus 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, you mean we turn it into a disambiguation page? Hmmm! A good idea. We remove the paragraphs at the bottom and leave the links. Then, we put a disambig template. If we have a consensus on that, then let's just wait for the AfD closure and then commence. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to remove that paragraph explaining things to people. Call it a list page, or a link page. Even disambig pages have information on them, and what brief bit is there is necessary for people to understand what they are linking to, and why there is a difference. Dream Focus 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Part yes and part no. Let's just say our source of compliance is WP:DISAMBIG. Fleet Command (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the article as it is now. The sentence before the links and three sentences after it, are necessary to understand what it is. A valid list article, aids in navigation, and a common search term, linking people to whichever of the three notable series they were looking for. Dream Focus 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Our source of compliance is WP:DISAMBIG. Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the article as it is now. The sentence before the links and three sentences after it, are necessary to understand what it is. A valid list article, aids in navigation, and a common search term, linking people to whichever of the three notable series they were looking for. Dream Focus 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Part yes and part no. Let's just say our source of compliance is WP:DISAMBIG. Fleet Command (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to remove that paragraph explaining things to people. Call it a list page, or a link page. Even disambig pages have information on them, and what brief bit is there is necessary for people to understand what they are linking to, and why there is a difference. Dream Focus 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, you mean we turn it into a disambiguation page? Hmmm! A good idea. We remove the paragraphs at the bottom and leave the links. Then, we put a disambig template. If we have a consensus on that, then let's just wait for the AfD closure and then commence. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It links to other pages, this a valid search term. People search for Super Dimension, there are three pages they could be looking for, so a disambiguation page is fine. Dream Focus 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm, the English article is a mess. The Japanese article is a bit more detailed; it seems like the three series were advertised by the production company as part of the same franchise, despite the lack of plot overlap. Not all that unusual a concept, but certainly more common in Japanese television than here. I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to create a franchise article that meets notability requirements, but it might be worth investigating. Doceirias (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... An interesting note. However, such a note is not so notable that merit its own article, now is it? You can consider putting this note in other articles... with proper citations, of course. Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, any franchise page would need to be sourced properly. That goes without saying. I'm merely suggesting there may be more grounds/need for one than the English version of the page suggests; anything further would need an interested editor to get involved and do some digging. Doceirias (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- That more easily said than done. This article has been up for four years, since 2006. It had so much time for development. It hasn't developed. Hence, it is not potentially notable. If you feel otherwise, you are more than welcome to prove it. Fleet Command (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Failure to develop a stub does not imply lack of notability. I'm not voting keep here; from what's in the article now, taking it to AfD was perfectly fair. At the same time, there is precedence for franchise pages like this if one can be developed; this AfD will be read by editors who might want to edit it, so I pointed out that there was more information on the Japanese page in case there was something to be made of it. Not sure why you're arguing with me about that. Doceirias (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a voting booth! And Afd is not about voting either; it is about improving the quality of an encyclopedia that is meant to remain forever. This heap of text that call itself an article had four years to develop. It did not and it won't over the next 4 years. If you wish, userify this page (or move it to incubator) and work on it to make it a good stub, a disambiguation page or a good category page. I think it is self-evident here that this article in this condition does not merit existence. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Try reading what I said instead of screaming at me. I specifically SAID I wasn't voting! (And I didn't mean voting in the sense you imply anyway, merely the word in bold people use when stating a position.) I don't edit articles much these days; I monitor anime AfD because I speak Japanese and can occasionally provide additional information that is available on the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and that more active editors can use to decide for themselves if there is a way to make an article into something worthwhile. I have seen far worse articles become good ones after someone sent them to AfD. Stop trying to turn this into an argument, assume good faith, and wait until consensus arises. Doceirias (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't scream. (Why should I?) And I perfectly assumed good faith. (Why should I not?) If you feel this article may improve, you can userify it or move it to incubator. Do you feel such, Doceirias? If so, we can drop the AfD right away. Fleet Command (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to work on the article, as I said above. I'm simply providing information here. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to argue with me about the information I'm providing; I apologize if I've misunderstood your intention, but you've clearly misunderstood mine, or you would never have responded to me at all. I genuinely don't understand why we're having this conversation, but I would suggest that, in future, you trust your initial statement and allow AfDs to take their course. Responding to every comment made -- even if you're just trying to clarify your intent -- just makes it look like you're trying to own the discussion, or something. In the meantime, opinions from other experienced editors would be welcome. Doceirias (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't scream. (Why should I?) And I perfectly assumed good faith. (Why should I not?) If you feel this article may improve, you can userify it or move it to incubator. Do you feel such, Doceirias? If so, we can drop the AfD right away. Fleet Command (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Try reading what I said instead of screaming at me. I specifically SAID I wasn't voting! (And I didn't mean voting in the sense you imply anyway, merely the word in bold people use when stating a position.) I don't edit articles much these days; I monitor anime AfD because I speak Japanese and can occasionally provide additional information that is available on the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and that more active editors can use to decide for themselves if there is a way to make an article into something worthwhile. I have seen far worse articles become good ones after someone sent them to AfD. Stop trying to turn this into an argument, assume good faith, and wait until consensus arises. Doceirias (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a voting booth! And Afd is not about voting either; it is about improving the quality of an encyclopedia that is meant to remain forever. This heap of text that call itself an article had four years to develop. It did not and it won't over the next 4 years. If you wish, userify this page (or move it to incubator) and work on it to make it a good stub, a disambiguation page or a good category page. I think it is self-evident here that this article in this condition does not merit existence. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Failure to develop a stub does not imply lack of notability. I'm not voting keep here; from what's in the article now, taking it to AfD was perfectly fair. At the same time, there is precedence for franchise pages like this if one can be developed; this AfD will be read by editors who might want to edit it, so I pointed out that there was more information on the Japanese page in case there was something to be made of it. Not sure why you're arguing with me about that. Doceirias (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- That more easily said than done. This article has been up for four years, since 2006. It had so much time for development. It hasn't developed. Hence, it is not potentially notable. If you feel otherwise, you are more than welcome to prove it. Fleet Command (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, any franchise page would need to be sourced properly. That goes without saying. I'm merely suggesting there may be more grounds/need for one than the English version of the page suggests; anything further would need an interested editor to get involved and do some digging. Doceirias (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... An interesting note. However, such a note is not so notable that merit its own article, now is it? You can consider putting this note in other articles... with proper citations, of course. Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think the entire Macross series here on wikipedia needs to be redone and revamped so that there are not 2 articles telling similar things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Google news shows results, and it not hard to find reliable news sources that mention that Robotech was released as a merger of these unrelated series. The information is all verifiable, and gets ample coverage everywhere. Dream Focus 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this article is neither about Robotech nor the splicing of the series. So, I'm afraid what Google News shows is of very little significance here. Besides, you are now advocating conversion of this "article" into a disambiguation page, aren't you? Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per the reasons given by the nominator. Rohedin 18:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this article is not needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Turn into a disambiguation page Whether the three Super Dimension series are related to each other, what cannot be disputed is that all three have "Super Dimension" in their titles. It would make more sense then to turn this article into a formal disambiguation page if the rest of the information cannot be sourced. —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Turn it into a category if necessary. SnottyWong talk 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)