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 keep. I was asked to expand and am doing so now. Whether or not to merge the text to another home is still keeping the text-where to keep it, i.e. merging or re-directing, is an editorial decision that doesn't require continuing the AfD. With regard to the deletes, no notability asserted is not a reason to delete if the information can be found. Consensus appears to be that it can be. I read this as a "keep" but if folks are more comfortable calling it a no-consensus, I can live with that. TravellingCari 23:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Base[edit]

White Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The White Base is one of the most famous fictional ships there is. The article's current state is dire, but listing it for deletion is not the correct method. It should be improved upon, considering its status as an extremely well known element of a fictional series.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a "list of ships in UC timelime", though I'm pretty sure you can find Japanese sources for this. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the principal ship of the protagonists of the series and is referred to in dialog in other Gundam UC series. I also recall seeing it in compilations of "famous anime ships" so someone with access to old Japanese trade publications might be able to source this. --Polaron | Talk 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean-up. The main ship of Gundam original series (the first and most notable of all Gundam series) shares the same position of Macross and Yamato in terms of notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Zero Kitsune. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The copy-pasted nomination incorrectly describes this spaceship as a weapon. And of course there is no "current assertion for future improvement" - no article on Wikipedia contains such comments. The subject is one of the most notable fictional vehicles, being the central vehicle in the first series that spawned a huge franchise involving multiple TV series, movies, comic books, video games, novels, and associated merchandising of models, toys, artbooks, tshirts, keychains, etc. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trout TTN for not reading before nomming This is basically the Japanese version of the starship Enterprise. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to back that up with actual sources. The article is seven paragraphs of pure plot information and trivial statistics without even a hint of real world importance. Starship Enterprise and its sub-articles, while mainly badly written, have at least have a bit of information to assert some sort of potential improvement. TTN (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject is notable, but article is in dire need of sourcing. Flags should remain or be added accordingly. MalikCarr (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – absolutely no notability asserted via significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Present article is nothing more than excessive in-universe plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The White Base is as earlier noted not a single weapon, but rather a ship, and is definitely notable. There is definitely room for improvement over what is already there, but deleting it would almost be like deleting the RX-78 article, as both the White Base and the RX-78 are crucial to the plot of the original Gundam series. Ewdin (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite the article's poor state, it is very hard to assume good faith that only after 5 days of it being tagged with issues, along with quite some other articles of the same sort, TTN placed an AfD on the article. MythSearcher^talk 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly in-universe, with not the slightest suggestion--or hope, really--of any coverage or importance outside of its fan-base. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No 'hope'? This ship is an extremely famous and iconic part of history. The page is lacking now, but third party sources can easily be found to back it up.kuwabaratheman (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then show the sources. If this is such an iconic part of anime history, then sources should be easy to come by. As it stands, the article should be deleted for the utter lack of such sources, and that it's nothing more than plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If no one else does by this weekend,, then I'll do my best to provide plenty of sources. But I should remind you that AFD is not a cleanup source. The article is in dire need of cleaning up, but not deletion. Bringing this page to AFD is only wasting everybody's time.kuwabaratheman (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that AfD is not cleanup does not mean that the article does not have to show adequate sources to demonstrate notability; quite the contrary, one of the purposes of AfD is to determine whether such notability actually exists. Demanding whether sources actually exist is an actionable request that must be complied with. The sources do not even have to be put into the article. Showing there that source A says B and source C says D about the subject is enough. As it stands, there is not an iota of notability asserted, and it should be deleted. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I've always seen arguments about sources are not notable, anything anime related are not notable and so on. So, I got a source that says the Archangel class in the Mobile Suit Gundam Seed series, which is aired 24 years after the first Mobile Suit Gundam is referencing the White base, seems quite giving the white base a good notability.(source: Otona no Gundam Perfect, Nekkei Entertainment, this is a secondary source) Yet most of the time similar things would be given regards of being fictional stuff are not notable as a whole and is totally ignored. BTW, the White Base also have same class ships that appeared in various Gundam related games, and is the first(or at least one of the first) mothership to be able to carry units in the Super Robot Wars series. During the on air period, in the magazine Animage, there are also various questions about White Base, instead of focusing on the mobile suits, like comparing it with space battleship Yamato and from its exotic design, asking if it can transform into a giant robot.(The latter question, Tomino replied the questioner watched too much TV and manga and please do not watch anything but Gundam only in a joking manner.) Mobile Suit Gundam is the family anime in Japan, and is not only popular but also have great influence on Japanese culture, characters and machines in it are also having much more influence than Starship Enterprise to the American culture. MythSearcher^talk 10:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is an important place/object on the show (a la Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shouta (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And clean-up. Please spike the notability into the lede so the rest of us understand why his is notable. Also please add some obvious references for those wanting to drill deeper on their own. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A note to the closing administrator: none of the 'keep' comments have addressed notability in Wikipedia context, only unsupported assertions of notability, as well as comments about it being 'popular' or 'important'; absolutely nothing addressing significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. seresin ( ¡? )  20:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere in good faith that this has some notability (never heard of it), otherwise this would be a redirect or delete. I just see pure plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and no sources, not even plot sources (WP:V unknown). If this AfD ends in a keep (likely), leave the cleanup tags in place so that this article can be reviewed in a couple of weeks/months for improvement. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:26, 1 November 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.