Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-02

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 of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-02

Delete. Gamecruft. Lhlhlh 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Ace Combat 04. Since it's not that long, it could be merged into one of the original game articles. ConDem^Talk 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A merge would be out of place..it would be like, a big section about New York City in the United States article. About it being gamecruft, there are more serious offenders than this....though this article could use some improvements.deadkid_dk 11:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

keep Why must we delete this article. The creators of this article are not doing anything offensive by having this page on the website come on let us practice our freedom of speech. Guys there are much better things we can be debating about.- DBoy 417

• Send the more serious offenders to me and I'll send them to AfD. --Mmx1 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Neglects to disclose he/she is a contributor to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhlhlh (talk • contribs)

I added nothing to the article except a category and some grammar, I don't think I need to disclose that. Stop nitpicking. deadkid_dk 12:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's considered good form. 156.34.89.249 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

*Comment: c'mon, creators/contributors chip in on AfD all the time, and few disclose jack. It's to be expected. RGTraynor 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gamecruft. Wiki is not GameFAQs. --Mmx1 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft and how-to. Brian G. Crawford 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no content except fictional description of the craft and gameplay tips, neither of which are encyclopedic. We deleted a shitton of Orbiter articles on the same reason. Night Gyr 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have rewritten the article to include some real world references, though I'm not sure if that can save it from the Hells of Deletion. deadkid_dk 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge we should merge this into a big list of AC Fictional Aircraft, with the Falken, morgan, Hresvelgr, and all the rest. User:Stuka2 19:36, 10 April 2006.
• Merge. per Stuka2. If necessary just move the article to List of AC Fictional Aircraft and let it be the first one. -- cmh 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with a merge, but how would all the information fit? deadkid_dk 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete anything similar to "The X-02 is regarded as the overall best airplane" as speculation and OR

Delete anything similar to "The X in the name hints that it could be an experimental aircraft." as idle speculation on fictional matters.

Delete "Development and Operational History" as a rehash of the game plots"

Delete in-game specs of the plane. (even the Starcraft pages don't detail the HPS or damage of the units)

Delete trivia as rumor (we don't cite forums).

And get rid of the references (Ace Combat walkthrough?)

Looks good to me--Mmx1 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done most of those except removing the history and trivia section, the reason being:

1. The 'plot' mentioned is a minor subplot, not a rehash of the games' actual plots.
2. The trivia section is included not because of the rumour from the forum, but because the production team actually responded on it.

deadkid_dk 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is a denied rumor significant? --Mmx1 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Like the Aeris resurrection rumor from Final Fantasy 7. deadkid_dk 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the in-game specs? Please do not confuse a Real-Time-Strategy game which relies on the overall effectiveness of specialized units and a flying/simulation game where individual plane statistics alter the very nature of how to approach flying that plane successfully in a mission. While individual HPS and damages of each of the little units in say, StarCraft, matter little in the overall strategies of playing the game, a difference of what loudouts a plane has or how maneuverable it is within the game's architecture are incredibly important to the simulation aspect of the game. Had Ace Combat been a RTS utilyzing aircraft, then I could possibly see not having a description regarding their statistics, but this is clearly not the case. The statistics of each aircraft in this type of game specifically control what can be done with that aircraft and how it will perform against a set of enemies. I would consider this an omission of published, verifiable information. IdoAlphaOmega 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"furrowed brow" So the HPS of unit doesn't approach how i use it in an RTS? When it comes down to it, wiki is not a place to expound on game mechanics. Please, take a page from the Trek geeks, who've moved all their tech specs off to their independent wiki. Somebody should start a wiki rival to gamefaqs. --Mmx1 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the HP an integral part of your RTS that sets apart one unit from another? Is there a grunt in StarCraft with 10HP more than the regular grunt? If it is, please argue so and have it included where it is necessary. No game mechanics are being expounded upon here, merely statistics - similar to the statistics or real aircraft by the way - which even many Star Trek spacecraft have. There's even a Star Trek Template Project to unify how tech specs regarding the various vessels are presented. Sorry, but the GameFAQs analgy is only an attempt to attach negative connotation to the article in question, and I will not tolerate it. Wikipedia's own FAQs states that GameFAQs articles are often instead rather detailed descriptions of gameplay, including tips, secrets, and beginning-to-end guidance, and, thus far, nobody has shown how the X-02 article has been any of those things. IdoAlphaOmega 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, if real aircrafts can list their specs in their respective articles, I don't see why not for fictional planes. deadkid_dk 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Expand. Although a fictional aircraft, there are quite a few articles on Wikipedia regarding fictional characters, places, events, which span barely three lines. The X-02 spans three different games, is a unique creation with published, certifiable statistics (games are published too, you know as well as information in several published player's guides), and appears as both flyable and enemy-controlled aircraft. Granted, it does need some work, but the majority revolves around updating the article and adding information and statistics from Ace Combat 5 and Ace Combat Zero. It should be noted that the originator of this AFD has targetted several Ace Combat articles for deletion - many with detailed, succinct, and varied information all while giving the reason "Gamecruft" and no further explanation. IdoAlphaOmega 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nom has not nominated any other Ace Combat articles AFAIK. Your accusation is baseless. --Mmx1 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, it appears that I was incorrect in making such an accusation. I retract my statement and apologize. However, my statements regarding the X-02 article still stand, and there was an attempt to AFD the ADF-01, ADFX-01, Ustio, Belka, and Yuktobania articles related to Ace Combat 5 by the same person which led me such an erroneous conclusion. Just as an addition, the article differs from GameFAQ articles in a few significant ways A) it does not provide step-by-step (aka a guide) information on obatining the craft B) it does not give advice on how or when to use the craft, and C) does not comment about the plane's abilities except to mention that it, as many of the fictional super-fighters in previous AC games were, is a marginally and/or significantly better than its real-world digital counterparts. IdoAlphaOmega 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not see how anything on the X-02 page can be related to gamefaq... During several years, Namco has created a whole universe with the ace combat series. That universe fly far away the ace combat games, as the background is deeply described in official sites (who keep being updated even after the releases of the games) and game books. So I think there is enought facts about X-02 to keep his page, as any Star wars fighter... Hirose 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Expand "Gamecruft?" Honestly, if one starts to get irritated on topics such as this, the Wiki better go after everything. I know from doing a whole report on it that there is enough specs on it to make a convincing arguement that it could fly (simulations in X-Plane--yes, I know its a sim, and still only a game--have shown that it really could fly). Not only that, but unless similar articles on other games are put up for deletion, I find this unessecarry to even consider this. It's not cluttering anything as the only way to find it is when one researches Ace Combat, and if that's the case, why not keep it for those people actually searching for it? Kinda a no-brainer to me. (AceCombatSkies.com Admin "F22_Fan" posted 10:08 AM, 11 April 2006 GMT)

• Keep Why remove it? It may be a fictional aircraft, yes, but in that case everything fictional should be deleted from Wikipedia. The article itself is not bad. Keep, or at least make a big article about Ace Combat fictional aircraft. YF-23 17:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article needs improvment, that is no reason to delete it. Concerning the X-02 being fictional: If that is a reason to delete the article, then why do the articles for such fictional craft as the F-302, X-Wing, F/A-37, and Starfury remain unchallenged? Tempest2

Comment Note the user who put this up for deletion: his account is now inactive, and what the heck kind of name is Lhlhlh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.239.31 (talk • contribs)

Does that matter? No personal attacks please. deadkid_dk 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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.