Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of Ace Combat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations of Ace Combat

[edit]
Organizations of Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Ace Combat series articles. As such, it is duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this page has needed clean up for a long time, just never got around to doing it. This worked well when we had a nation's page. I guess we could try to move some of this info to other pages. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated Judge. Rogue Commander (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations that appear in multiple recognizable games that sell millions of copies around the world are covered in the games themselves and in published strategy guides and that are familiar to millions of people are notable by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply false; Wikipedia has standards of verifiability, and this article has yet to find even one reference that would prove notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented plenty of references that prove notability. You can claim a bananna is not a bananna, but that doesn't mean it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented not one link to any cite demonstrating actual notability, not now, and never in any previous AFD. You have linked to random google searches and to "encyclopedias" that are really pure plot repetition and which you have no idea what the contents are. You must Prove notability, not indirectly suggest other editors are being lazy for not seeing these "references" you have discovered. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is look at the many published guides that cover the series for reliable sources and also consider the many published reviews of the relevant games as well. There needs to be an urgent and compelling reason to delete an article and when there's realistic potential we default to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is a very compelling and urgent reason to eliminate content that fails to meet out policies. And again, you refer to "guides" you have never read, and have no idea their contents, for proof of verifiability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I whole heartedly agree that constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is key to these discussions, but my opinion is that it does not definitively fail policies and that we provide a real service by covering this information in some details. I've read enough strategy guides to know what kind of information they cover. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you reply to me with those two quotes? Protonk (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In you post above, you capitalized your personal opinion of what the goal of encyclopedia is. As you and I have exchanged friendly quotations before, I thought you might be interested in what other encyclopedists laid out as the goals of such projects. As such it shows that a notable aspect of a notable game series is an element of human knowledge with real world interest to readers and editors and thus we provide humanity with a service by covering such knowledge in a comprehensive fashion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major aspects or settings in major series or games or the like are suitable as subarticles. I assume this one is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. This is the right sort of combination article. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break: The Grand Merge and which variation do we go with

[edit]

Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat, a proposal has been made to merge these sections into a new article. So, here are some ideas: 1) keep the articles as separate articles; 2) merge and redirect them all to Universe of Ace Combat, or 3) keep this article separate, but merge the militaries and nations articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begging the question. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figure it's best to see how others think we should go about a merge rather than just doing it unilaterally. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, no. I'm referring to the same thing AMiB is. Notability 'across the various articles' has not been established yet we are operating on the presumption that it has. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been to me and the others arguing to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But arguments to keep do not notability make. I accept freely that the Ace combat series is notable. There is an article covering that subject already. We are making a different claim to say that, distinct from the Ace combat series of games, the fictional universe of ace combat is notable. That is not an impossible claim. Middle Earth is certainly notable. But in order to make that claim we need to show that there exist independent sources that cover the ace combat universe in significant detail--specifically not in passing in order to make claims about the Ace Combat series. In other words, a brief summary for a review should not be used to justify the existence of an article about the fictional universe. Forgive me if I am wrong but I don't see that rather extraordinary claim being made and supported by independent, reliable sources in these articles or these discussions. Hence the suggestion that we are operating from a non-established premise. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion is different from a keep discussion. We know that the various Ace Combat games have been previewed and reviewed with attention spent on specific aspects (whether it be weapons or pilots); thus in an article on the universe of Ace Combat or that say merges the characters and militaries with the nations, we can combine these sources to show collectively notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat
Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Across the various discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The various places (I am not going to re-link, repeat myself) in which I cited sources that caused at least one or more other editors to start getting the idea for a merge of the various articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two people have said, "Where on Earth did you establish that?" Presumably, you haven't done a good job of establishing it; you've done such a bad job of establishing it that I also want to merge this article and you have failed to convince me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to merge the article, then what are your ideas/suggestions for how we go about making the merge? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slash this down heavily and upmerge this to the series article, like I said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fourth option AMiB alluded to, which I find vastly preferable: Merge to the series and various game articles, because, from what I can tell, very few of the nations, organizations, characters, or militaries are present in more than one game. Or we can delete them all for pretty much the same reasons, and let the games' plot summaries take care of it. Nifboy (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete the non-notable cruft, seeing as this topic hasn't been demonstrated as notable. Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Prove it, with references. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN. Don't just assert notability without appropriate sources. And I'll stop calling this cruft when you prove that it's notable. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done that for the sake of the merge discussion; I am not going to keep repeating myself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes three people who've asked you how it's notable and you've answered with "I did already, didn't you see?" No, you didn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, no one has convinced me that it is not notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's here to convince you; you're not even listening to requests to clarify your position. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified my position multiple times; the various aspects of Ace Combat (multiple appearances, because multiple games and a recognizable game series at that) are covered in published strategy guides as reliable primary sources and in reviews and previews as reliable secondary sources. I believe as do others in these discussions that we have enough content to use somehow whether it be outright keeping or some kind of merge rather than outright deleting and I am open to ideas as to how we can best go baout doing that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to some references that have seen fit to comment on any of the organizations/militaries/nations/whatever in this series. You've vaguely waved at "Well maybe we can use these!" but never actually proposed a single reference that isn't the games or a game guide that we could use to write an article. You want to glom all of these into one article that will just end up back at AFD with exactly the same problems, and that's not really a solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true, as I have posted links to articles that cover weapons or pilots, for example. My idea would be to merge all to the list of nations article and divide that into subsections that connect the militaries, organizations, and characters under their respective countries. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The former is a copy-paste from a press release, and is nothing but a bare list of objects appearing in one game. The latter is about the characters of one single game, fits neatly into the AC6 article but nowhere else, and says nothing else about the setting.
What's more, militaries and organizations in AC are heavily international or cross-national. Organizing them by country would amount to massive plot summary organized in an in-universe way, would involve a catch-all "international" being half of this bloated awful article you're proposing, and STILL wouldn't solve the fact that these articles are all plot summary and have fuck all for decent sources.
I am reading the things you find in Google searches; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it is coverage in sources other than the games, which reveals that these places are interested in these aspects of the games. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT ISN'T COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECTS OF THESE ARTICLES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I am not exactly sure how to go about this. This was created to deal with the organizations that are the backbone of the series, and I wouldn't know what to do with the info if this page could't be kept. Much of the info under Neucom and General Resource could probably be added to Ace Combat 3's article under plot, though I haven't got around to it. If someone else could handle it I would appreciate it (and I am asking this of an Ace Combat fan who is familiar with the story!). Other then that, I don't know what to do.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:49, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Organizations_of_Ace_Combat&oldid=1145570530"