Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militaries of Ace Combat

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 01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Militaries of Ace Combat

This article is a massive, in-universe repetition of trivia from the Ace Combat articles, and has zero notability as established by reliable sources. It is therefore pure plot repetition which belongs in the Ace Combat articles, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that there are multiple AFDs on Ace Combat articles. Perhaps these should be grouped? Myrrideon (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 22:01, 11 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) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 12 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]

Coverage in a major video game franchise with published books allows for an article that can and should be referenced and that is notable (not every game series can make such claims). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I provided a link to multiple books that demonstrate the notability of aspects of this franchise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to link to a single book that demonstrates it, demonstrating being the key word. Otherwise, you have nothing but idle speculation of its possible notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games themselves are notable and I believe we can use the guides as well as reviews to expand on coverage on the militaries. I believe if we also consider previews and reviews we can fix up the article accordingly, i.e. that it has reasltic potential, which is why I oppose deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is impressive, 127 references to the same non-source. Anyway. Clean with a chainsaw and upmerge, pretty basic WP:N failure but there's no mention of the nations in Ace Combat, the parent series article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge a few paragraphs as stated above. The topics itself is not covered in third party reliable sources, so it doesn't need an article. TTN (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mostly filled with fancruft. Martarius (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every reference is to a primary source or a wikipedia page. No secondary source covers the article subject in significant detail. Notability is not asserted (really) or established by the article and is most certainly not inherited from the parent article. As always, if a reliable, independent source is shown that establishes notability, I'll be happy to !vote keep. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work has been done verifiying and sourcing some of this content, and it appears necessary to comprehensive coverage of Ace Combat. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prime example of cruft a_{nd yes I will use the term so don't waste your bandwidth linking to articles telling me not to,} all sources are primary - no third party reliable sources. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already established that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a bad article, mostly primary sources but some others, enough to meet WP:V for certain. Whoever placed the 3000 tags on the article should be wacked. That's just POINTY. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviews discuss the plot including things in the article. http://www.gamebump.com/go/gh_preview_ace_combat_zero_the_belkan_war_ps21 for example. Most are short, but you can likely construct a fair bit of the article from these. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the link you provided specifically, there's no critical reception. The only comments they make in regards to the militaries is a rehashing of the plot. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But that's a secondary source (among many) for the plot parts of this article. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't mean anything in terms of notability, but sure. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does, the "plot" of the militaries are discussed in a RS. Not the best source for this article, but it goes toward notability. And my point is, there are a lot of them (just search) Hobit (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a passing mention that does nothing but provide a rehash of the plot, then no, it doesn't constitute notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that notability guidelines don't address if the point of coverage was plot or something else. The passing reference point would be a valid point, but I think it is more than passing in many of these reviews. But that is more a matter of opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to go beyond "X did this" or a simple repeat of what the plot is. If it does nothing but that, then there's no notability asserted because there's no critical coverage (i.e. "The inclusion of X in the game adds depth to the plot"). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no critical coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 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. Primary sources are adequate for articles like this--the notability has to be only for the game. DGG (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "the notability has to be only for the game.". This directly contradicts WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The topic in question is, clearly, Militaries of Ace Combat not Ace Combat itself. Otherwise I could justify an article on My character's pet in World of Warcraft citing World of Warcraft's notability. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scavenge then Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, some content is definately salvageable though. Please read WP:N for the criteria for including something. This does not meet it. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guys and gals, I find some of the comments above to be not assuming good faith at all... with some even bordering on personal attacks. I'm sure we all agree that there will be some degree of reference/notability to Militaries (sic) involved in Ace Combat, the question here I believe is: "Do we need this as part of comprehensive listings on Ace Combat?". Could we reasonably expect to find sources to assert notability for this? (Not "prove this is notable", or "too hard to find sources"; the question is could one reasonably expect to find such sources). Icemotoboy (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like the article was originally a flat list of aircraft and the prose grew up around it. Unfortunately, the prose that is there mostly consists of speculation and assorted observations about each military. If there's a sane way of tackling the Ace Combat universe, this isn't it. Nifboy (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are reasons to fix, not delete. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not opposed to a sane means of describing the Ace Combat universe, complete with ancillary articles, I don't believe there's anything salvagable here. Fixing it would be roughly equivalent to scrapping it and starting over. Nifboy (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, a great deal of information here violates WP:GAMECRUFT because it goes into so much detail about weaponry that it verges on WP:GAMEGUIDE material. (Although this is really an issue of notability: if the weapons in the game are notable in compliance with the WP:GNG, then of course they should be included.) A complete violation of WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the notability guidelines are under strong scrutiny. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. And it complete satisfies what Wikipedia is. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read carefully, my argument is much more than "it's cruft". Did you stop reading after the word "because"? This is a word you could stand to use much more yourself. Randomran (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Translation: no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What we have are such IGN articles as "Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies: Check out a complete list of secondary weapons and a new SU-37 wallpaper image," which as the title suggests provides out of universe preview comments specifically on the weapons (obviously aspects of the militaries of the game). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We have a list of objects appearing in the game, a description of the gameplay, and not a single mention of the military groups in the games at all. That's a bad reference for AC4, and utterly inapplicable to this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's definitely enough where I'm thinking after looking again at the nations article, which is more or less a 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! 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't talk about the nations, either, other than in the (completely useless as a source) copy-pasted press release at the bottom. The only editorial content in the article is about gameplay and story impressions, which fit into AC4's article but not really anywhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll have to check some of my back issues of game magazines again over the weekend as I recall reading some information on the topic that is further making me think we can in some manner or other combine the short nations article with this one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Why don't we create a "Universe of Ace Combat" page, and merge all this and the other articles into it. I think we can all agree there is at the very least a little information in each of the articles that we could make into one useful article. I'm not a fan of putting it all into the Ace Combat article, as it is big enough already. I'd be prepared to help out with such a project. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this. I've just finished tidying the AC6 article, and found it disappointing that the supporting in-game aircraft article had been deleted. All four universe articles can be tidied and merged to support the games. Thedarxide (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand my point, I believe the Universe of Ace Combat is notable as the universe that Ace Combat has is discussed in many, many of the Ace Combat articles. These articles do not go into a significant depth, therefore, we will probably not go into such depth either. But I am sure with many areas to cover we will want to keep it brief. While the individual components of the universe may not be notable in themselves, their wider collection is. This is much as a company may be notable, but its many products may not be. I believe putting the universe detail inside the main article would detract from it (much like we split out History of Microsoft Flight Simulator from the Microsoft Flight Simulator article. Icemotoboy (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is already to long though, how will that new article fare? the_ed 17 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobit and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines inappropriate content - lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts - this sort of content and particularly the level of detail is more appropriate for a gameplay manual. Further, the content seems to come solely from the games' manuals or personal observation (e.g. all the things seen in-game) — i.e. the information is not sufficiently notable to be found anywhere else. The article also contains much speculation - e.g. By 2010, probably because it possesses a much smaller coastline, or due to sanctions by the Allied forces, ... and This is probably due to the fact that ... -- Jll (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those are surmountable concerns given the sources discussed above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My principal objection is my first one — that Wikipedia no more needs a detailed list of what weapons and equipment are found in the games than it needs an illustrated parts list for a Mitsubishi Pajero. It is outside the scope of an encyclopedia because it is fine detail only relevent, or even meaningful, to people who play the games (or own the vehicle). Jll (talk) 19:39, 18 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! 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Hobit, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and DGG. the_ed 17 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as useless junk. While there are over 100 sources, not one is independent. Furthermore there is no claim to be notable, and very little that is out of universe. Also wikipedia is not a game guide. As such this fails WP:NOONECARES, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:INUNIVERSE, and probably a good 20 or so more --T-rex 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of which are not valid reasons for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete purely in universe and entirely original research and speculation. No independent source has ever written about this topic, this article amounts to nothing more than a detailed plot study. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above independent sources have addressed this topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment In retrospec, this page was built to coexist with a "List of the nations of Ace Combat" page, and the use of this page will all depend upon whether or not the nations page is kept. If we can keep the "nations" page, maybe we will be able to condense and merge this one into it.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:39, 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! 18:02, 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.