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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets[edit]

List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This list is just a large, redundant plot summary riddled with original research. It doesn't even attempt to establish any sort of notability, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use your Sandbox to create a good version of this article using references. Right now, there is not hint how can someone check all the facts which are written down. In addition, I don't doubt that the facts are accurate, but the only sources are within the fictional universe you are describing. This is certainly problematic for an encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late now, if it gets deleted once it is very unlikely it will survive again if I resurrect it even with suitable sources. In this case, the source is the work itself, since it is a fictional work that does not have a large number of (English) secondary sources. Most fictional works derive most of their citations from the work itself, since the work is the exposition of facts and plot. Supporting materials (such as the official website) are occasionally used as well, but the primary source is the work itself. the_one092001 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the plot is the primary source of reference within a fictional work, including the plot is necessary for the article. Unlike real world objects that exist separate of the events that they may be featured in, fictional objects are often referenced only in relation to the plot, thus the plot is a necessary part of the article. If one were to remove all instances of plot from this article, the only thing that would remain is a horde of infoboxes, since the plot is essentially the history of the object.the_one092001 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think you miss the point about proportionality. If you are saying that there is nothing of an encyclopedic nature to be included on the topic other than plot summary and description of in-world elements, then that is a perfectly good argument – for deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing applies to nearly every other list of mecha or vehicles found in an anime, aside from extremely popular ones like Gundam and Evangelion (both of which have gained status simply due to their existence). The issue here IMO is less plot, but more notability (not notable in English-speaking countries since it was never officially translated. Very big in Japan, however).the_one092001 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, lots of other stuff exists that ignores WP:NOT#PLOT, and it is all unencyclopedic. The WP:N guideline specifically states under Presumed that the WP:NOT policy overrides. This discussion has persuaded me to change vote from merge to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I did not say that such sources do not exist. Indeed, the series is very popular in Japan to this day (despite its age)and very likely contains the same sources as would be expected of other major series (Pokemon, etc.). The issue here is that I do not have access to such sources, since I do not speak Japanese or have access to Japanese-made materials. The net effect is the same however: I do not have any sources to cite aside from the work itself. But the cause is different: not a lack of existence of sources, but instead a lack of access. the_one092001 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#PLOT applies. Article consists of nothing but plot elements. This is a frightening area of Wikipedia ... it appears that all the articles on this series consist of plot elements, and no attempt to provide any summary of real-world impact was ever made. Japanese Wikipedia summarises the series in one article, plot in about 4 paragraphs, and devotes roughly equal weight to the real world reception. It's apparently been quite successful, winning awards for quality and for enduring popularity. The English one looks more like an issue of Newtype.Kww (talk) 03:23, 20 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.
More