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 No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nations of Ace Combat[edit]

List of nations of Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just repetition of minor plot points from the various Ace Combat video games. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Delete. Completely agree! I was waiting for someone to start this discussion! Rogue Commander (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Rogue. How 'bout we restore the former/old version of this article per my argument here instead? the_ed17 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the old article was better! Keep the old version per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. the_ed17 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notabilitty has nothing to do with this lists. This is just a redirect target for various nations linked from various Ace Combat articles. It was created instead of separate articles per country, which were indeed nonnotable. It is a kind of glossary, useful for cross-referencing, since mosth of these countries are used in several games. Also, the nominator seems to cut and paste numerous nominations without much thinking. This article has no "repetition of minor plot points"; as I said, it is a glossary. `'Míkka>t 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply false; notability applies to all articles; in terms of articles notability requirements, there are no "sub articles" or any other exemption from that requirement that can be pointed to by policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not policy, it is a mere guideline. Therefore if the particular topic is not xplicitely mentioned, it means people much talk in essence not in "letter of law". But if you want to supersede common sense by hard wikilawyering, good luck. `'Míkka>t 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common sense logic behind WP:N is less "Wikipedia can't possibly cover every single person, object, place, and idea" and "It's not practical to write articles about subjects about which no reliable third-party sources have seen fit to comment." You can slap whatever tags you want on WP:N, but citing it is a challenge to any opposition to suggest where we can get sources to write this article (or come up with some way of writing such articles without sources that isn't pure plot summary or original research or both.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability lies with the game series, which this is a subarticle of. I guess the parent article is only 13 kb so could be merged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious upmerge to Ace Combat. That article could do with a section on the militaries/nations/organizations, since they're the main actors in the series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete It's small enough to fit within the main article if there is currently nothing better. If a better section is added, it can just be deleted. Without coverage in reliable sources, it does not need an article. TTN (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited (WP:GNG as well as WP:TOYS). The only source referenced is not reliable. If the content was based on sources that were reliable, we could merge it into the main article on the series. As it stands, I'm not inclined to do that--the main article already needs sourcing help but is free from too much WP:GAMEGUIDE content). the notability of the parent article, motives of the nominator or type of page (list/article) have nothing to do with the debate at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited. or upmerge to parent. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important part of important game. Reasonable breakout article. Reviews (for example) tend to assume the reader knows about the various nations (http://www.gamebump.com/go/gh_preview_ace_combat_zero_the_belkan_war_ps21 for example). Hobit (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major elements of major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge oon that point. DGG (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh?!? (merge) Are we all looking at the same article here? All I see is a list of "This country is a fictional country that featured in This Game". There's no content and I'm reasonably sure the plot summaries of each game would be so kind as to mention which nations are in conflict. It's a list for the sake of being a list. Nifboy (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And older AfD may be of interest here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nations of Ace Combat. Nifboy (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting. Probably no need to slap a G4 tag on this, but I can't imagine the recreation addresses to deletion reasons for the original article. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can temporarily undelete the other article to see if it is indeed the same content or if in fact it is different content that can be used to merge both articles? Maybe we have enough spread out on both versions that would make for something mutually acceptable. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. User:Jonny-mt, the deleting administrator, appears active today. We could ask him to userify it or restore a history only version. but if we restore it and it comes up as significantly similar to the current article, that doesn't bode well. I'll post a message in a sec. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I can see the old one, and it's nothing like this. I declined to G4 it, I imagine he will, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the old version better, worse, mergeable? --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history behind the current redirect, so feel free to use it in this discussion. I agree that the old article is different enough from the current one that WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. --jonny-mt 04:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old version (quick link) doesn't help; it's got all the same problems the other Ace Combat articles under discussion do, predominately a lack of any sort of context. On a side note, several of the images on that version are tagged as Public Domain, which I'm pretty sure isn't right, since they're fictional nations (and hence under copyright). Nifboy (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability guidelines are totally disputed at present and it has sufficient enough coverage for Wikipedia as addressed above. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy-pasting that they're "totally disputed" in three articles doesn't make it true. They're not in any sense totally disputed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The talk pages suggest otherwise. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funny, I see an attempt by you to mark the guideline as defunct, and a groundswell of opposition to that terrible idea. "I don't like it" does not translate into "It is totally disputed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent, for readability)
  • I'm not the only one who regards it as an unacademic, ineffective way of deciding content inclusion, which is why people are drafting RfCs on it (see Wikipedia talk:Notability) to discuss much needed reform. Maybe some agree on some kind of notability as a measure of inclusion, but what those standards are lack consensus in the various discussions I have seen. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're in a vocal minority that has ceased to have much luck disposing of it. The recent RFC was to loosen the restrictions for fiction articles, and it went down in flames. Up is not down, black is not white, minority opposition to the status quo does not negate a general consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see a vocal minority in these and other discussions. A much larger number of editors, i.e. a majority, work on and read these articles in question and I respect their efforts and opinions even when unspoken. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then create an RFC and get WP:N marked historical when you form a consensus to do so. I don't expect it'll be successful, and until you do, do not describe WP:N as "totally disputed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks on the talk page that both Masem and Randomran are trying to do that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent for readability)
    • Okay. In the meantime, don't do deceptive crap like describing it as "totally disputed" when people are still figuring out how they're going to draft an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be dishonest if I were to just act as if it has real support and is not interpreted quite differently in practice. Something need not have a disputed tag on it to actually be contested. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not disrupt AFDs with by describing guidelines as "totally disputed" because someone is considering proposing an RFC that may or may not result in changes to the guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a number of people working on changes as seen on the talk page, but in any event in a case like this where there is clearly editorial and reader interest, coupled with the topic appearing in multiple games and being covered by a variety of reliable sources, I think we can reasonably see some notability of the present topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So where's the discussion that resulted in a consensus to mark WP:N as ((historical)) or ((failed))? (Answer: nowhere.)
              "being covered by a variety of reliable sources"
              NOW we're back to the actual business of an AFD. What reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • In addition to the strategy guides, which are reliable primary sources, reviews of the games, which are reliable secondary sources, also mention the nations of the Ace Combat series. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay. What reviews of the games? What strategy guides have useful, non-gameguide content for this article? You're making the claim that reliable sources exist for writing this article, so you've clearly done the research to find some. Or were you making an empty, uninformed claim? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not all games have published strategy guides; thus for me having strategy guides is a sign of notability for a game and coverage of its fictionl elements in both the game and the strategy guides expands on that notability. In most reviews of the games, you do get some mention on the nations involved. Some might say, for example, that one nation's air force is more maneuverable than another's or other such comments in the various reviews of the various games that I believe can and should be used to improve the game. Put simply, I do not believe the article "can't" be fixed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay. Can you add a single referenced claim to this article other than "Such-and-such nation appears in such-and-such game" (an inane claim we can put in the game articles) or "Such-and-such nation has such-and-such weapons" (which is game-guide material we can also put in the game articles, or, you know, omit because it's game guide material? Do you have a single reference that talks about the nations collectively, rather than mentioning the nations as parts of individual games? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's definitely enough where I'm thinking after looking again at the militaries, which is more extensive than this in effect stub, that we can and perhaps should merge the two perhaps under a different title. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTE. Hardly any material to merge, but I wouldn't oppose that either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just Delete it as nn, pillar-violating, unencyclopedic cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article passes the five pillars, is notable, and is encyclopedic. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobit, Mikka and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 05:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in article Universe of Ace Combat as per Thedarxide. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as significant part of a notable game series, and orthogonal to the games themselves. The article needs to be expanded to provide a concise summary of each fictional nation and what happens to it through the game series. I would also support the merging of the articles into Universe of Ace Combat but I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat article and the scope of the List of Ace Combat characters. Jll (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claim to be notable. Furthermore it isn't notable --T-rex 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The original versions of this page nave been found?! There just maybe hope!Rogue Commander (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion nor evidence of real-world notability. Reasons for deletion include "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (Wikipedia is not a game guide) and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-game guide material asserts and presents evidence of real-world notability and there really aren't any valid reasons for deletion given that it meets the notability guidelines and has sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subejct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 20 July 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.