Wikipedia:Deletion review/YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

The following discussion is an archived review of the deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that the closure was endorsed. - brenneman^{L} 07:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

This AfD was inappropriately closed early by User:Starblind. Deletion policy states that "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." The closing is even more inappropriate because Starblind voted in the discussion, and because it wasn't even allowed to run for 24 hours. Please relist this and let it run its course on AfD. --Hetar 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close (obviously, as I was the closer). The nominator has listed no fewer than six Gundam articles for AfD in the past few weeks, all which ended in keep and all "lopsided" enough that there was no chance whatsoever of deletion of any of them. We have dozens (perhaps hundreds) of Gundam articles... what good does it do for the encyclopedia to create a completely hopeless AfD for each one? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist closer 'voted', not even 24 hours, not bad faith, there is a significant amount of people that did not vote to keep in all of the AFDs and most of the people voting keep happened to edit the articles or other SEED articles. Kotepho 05:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I know a pile-on when I see one. No way this debate could have produced consensus to delete. David | Talk 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Based on the account provided by Starblind, he had compelling reason to think this was a bad-faith AfD/violation of WP:POINT. As such, early closure was entirely within his discretion. Xoloz 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, bullshit. I interpret that as a very strong personal attack. See below. Brian G. Crawford 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations Given the precedent of recent closely related afd's, and similar voting trend in this one, a speedy keep seems reasonable (although it wouldn't have hurt to let it continue), even if not explicitly covered by WP:SK. However it would have looked better to let an admin who hadn't voted close it, even if the result would have been the same. Regards, MartinRe 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations What MartinRe said. JoshuaZ 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although an uninvolved admin would have been more appropriate. No point in repeated refights of the same battle, with predictable outcome. --Rob 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's funny that I get people accusing me of "bad faith" and violation of WP:POINT when nobody asked me why I nominated the Gundam articles for deletion. I think the minor Gundam articles appeal to only a very small, but vocal minority and need to be deleted. That's it. The Gundams have their own place at Wikia. I just didn't think they belonged here. How on earth is that bad faith? And what point was I trying to make? I still can't figure that one out. Personally, I don't think closing the AfD early was necessarily wrong, but I do think it's wrong that a vocal minority of children infatuated with giant robot cartoons and toys get their way and get to fill Wikipedia with useless crap. After getting few sympathetic reactions from other users and insults and actual death threats from the Gundam folks, I've decided that taking Gundam stuff to AfD is useless. Those Gundam kids aren't here to write a good encyclopedia. They're here to describe in excrutiating detail the fictional robots that obsess them. This deletion review discussion is pointless. I'm not contesting the results, and I apparently have a minority view of what to do with obvious fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per JoshuaZ. Would have been better if closed by an admin not involved in the debate. Metamagician3000 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.