Deletion of List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination)

Comment: per , a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I acknowledge the efforts, since the last nomination, of several contributors to provide source and to try to include out of universe content, but unfortunately this Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6|deletion review established that all these source are either insignificant (for some) or not independent (for the majority, which are commercial publications under direct contract with the copyright holders for the Gundam series), thus the criteria for inclusion are still not met. Let's not forget the obvious lack of balance between in-universe and out-of-universe content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources cited address in detail ''Mobile Suit Gundam SEED'' and ''Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny'', but not the Mobile Suits themselves, which when mentioned are mostly passing mentions and/or in-universe. There are no reliable #Notability|third-party sources independent of the subject to presume |notability. I do not see evidence that that they meet the |general notability guideline or that there are reliable sources for the individual weapons to presume that they should have a stand-alone list, as there are no sources that provide reception, significance or real-world perspective. Even if one tries to ignore the independent of the subject problem with the sources mentioned by Folken de Fanel, for notability purposes all the ''Newtype USA'' sources count as only one source because they are from the same publisher. The books cited in Amazon Japan are not even direct mentions and in no way show notability for the fictional weapons, as they are mostly tertiary sources that compile information but do not give objective evidence of notability or they are for the whole franchise. The only ones that I see as solid evidence for notability purposes are Anime News Network and T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews, and both of them do not treat the fictional weapons as a subject, but as part of the plot of the series. In fact, checking the reception section and the sources, they merely praises the overall mechanical design in the series, nothing to presume that the Mobile Suits are notable on their own or that it justifies to have a stand-alone list about them.Furthermore, the sources only serve to establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. As mentioned before, the reception section is not even about the mobile suits and should be covered in the series articles. The rest of the content of the article is a |plot-only description of a fictional work taken with |original research by synthesis at best, so the article also falls into WP:!|what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the criteria of |appropriate topics for lists. Knowing the mobile weapons in detail (even the notable ones plot-wise) is not necessary to understand the plot of the series. Whatever is needed to understand about them is already covered in the article mobile weapons. Per the criteria of |avoiding unnecessary splits, I do not think that this is a valid article split since it doesn't meet neither the general notability criterion nor any specific notability criteria and |notability is not inherited. The article is an unjustified |content fork more related to OTDIR|a complete exposition of all possible details, so I don't see a valid reason to keep the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:PLOT||WP:SYN||WP:SALAT||WP:AVOIDSPLIT||WP:ITSA||WP:CFORK||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Please notice the reason of the closing admin of the first nomination claimed that there are no address of notability in verifiable sources as the main deletion consensus, yet there are only 4 sources in that nomination, and the DrV increased the number of sources to 30, in which at least 1 is never refuted by anyone with a delete !vote, the Endorse !votes in the DrV have a few that come and go, without even stating whose view they supported and those are pretty much before anyone tried to refute the later added sources.  One of them did not only make personal attacks, but also completely ignores the direct claim of sources being not plot, which I must address the closing admin that this is a very obvious tendency of failure to engage in discussion and continued to give  reasonings just to make a .  Folken tried to refute the later sources, which I honoured, since he is pretty much the one and only who do so. Nevermind s/he ignored the Nikkei source, since I can also agree if only 1 single independent source is not an indication of notability, if it is the only independent source. S/he tried to do it by relating the different companies by single publications, in which Calathan gave a good reply up there.  Other delete !voters still failed to grasp that the sources listed here, at least the last 11, is NOT plot summary.  Jfgslo tried to merge different sources into one, stating they are by the same publisher, which is rather strange, different issue of the same magazine can have different topics, which led to different sources, merging them and saying they are all but only one is not reflecting any known policy.  Stating the amazon links are not direct mention is only like stating I cannot cite the magazine Science in any science article, since the cover of it is not direct mention.  Things have changed significantly during the DrV, stating the original close should stand is by no means a good argument.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|signed comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: all articles and lists need to meet the |general notability guideline.  says that "until there is a successful proposal to treat fiction in a specialized way, consult other policies and guidelines for guidance on a wide range of topics, including fiction." Don't just make up guidelines without showing real support. This article is mainly in-universe and primary coverage that fails #PLOT and 's request for third-party information about significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FICT||WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Reply to Folken on the DrV, The ''magazine'' you linked to is not a magazine, it is a series of books published by Futabasha, called the ''Common Knowledge of...'', which also includes other topics like gemstones and the Edo period.  This particular one is ''Common Knowledge of Gunpla'' it does give out a 1/288 model, yet it is a gift, not a product.  The book talks about the history of Gunpla, which is actually a very prominent hobby in Japan, in which the hobby magazine, Hobby Japan, which was first published 10 years before First Gundam have significant coverage of it per issue.  Bandai has its own catalogs and history books, and multiple other companies also does the same thing, it is very reasonable that all businesses want to take a bite out of something that can make money, that is why there are dozens of publishers publishing thousands of Gundam related books, including Gakken, a publisher that published mainly educational products, also published at least two books on the One Year War, which is not much more than plot summary other than some fictional strategy analysis.  Giving out gifts along with books are also very common in Japan, http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4056043396 Like this one it would be entirely funny if this particular issue made Gakken a complete COI that anything it publishes cannot give notability to the Newton telescope because it produces Newton telescopes(not that it needed any, but you get my point).  Per : '' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.4'', and ''4 Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.''  First, I must seek your consensus that ''affiliation'' does not equal to publication of related material, because nothing can have sources since all sources are basically a direct publication of relate material.  Also, COI cannot be a simple market driven relationship, meaning a scientific journal needs scientific breakthrough to continue publication, so it is pretty heavily related to the market and will have to publish related material for its business survival.  Every other major publishers, if not all, in Japan had publications related to Gundam, it triggered an anime boom after all, so if we follow your method, Gundam cannot be notable due to all sources will be affiliated.  Great Mechanics is not a self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiography or press release, it is also not work produced by the subject and the company is producing prominently other publications not related thus the connection is very weak. —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|signed comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: nbsp; This is supported in part by #1, "''The nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion...''" and further by anning policy.&nbsp; The first AfD nomination was by a sockpuppet, so it is not correct to call this a ''re''list.&nbsp; There were no delete !votes when the Speedy Keep was identified.&nbsp; What we have now is two AfDs and zero nominations.&nbsp; See also
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK||WP:B)

Comment: fails |general notability guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Plenty of independent, |reliable sources. That argument had some strength in the previous AfD, and applies all the more so with the new sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There are no out-of-universe, independent sources at all.  So this clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I am seeing more sources added to the list as time goes on, the article is stil lin very bad shape but it does okay otability and  wise, I feel with these references and more it can be fixed up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)