Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spaceships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. MBisanz talk 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spaceships

[edit]
List of fictional spaceships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

OMG triviafarm which fails WP:NOT. Set phasers to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not seeing how this could possibly be a trivia farm. Spacecrafts are crucial to many sci-fi books, films and tv shows. The problem here is that is completely unsourced and offers nothing that the category system can't handle. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does. It's so much easier and more rewarding to navigate and browse an all-in-one-place list article than an alphabetised category/sub-category hierarchy. List articles also allow short explanatory notes to be added (as here) so you don't have to click on every link to find out the context. If I had to choose between a list article and a category page then I'd choose the former every time. I get the impression, too, that list articles tend to be better maintained than categories; I'm guessing this is because editors like them more and see more value in them. Matt 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
  • Keep - The list is badly designed and completly unsourced but it has been around for several years, alot of work has gone into adding to it by different people and it is useful for sci fi addicts. If the list was put into a sortable table by Name / what the ship was in or from then i think it would be pretty good. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fix the issues, by all means, rather than just deleting. With the recent rash of deletions and mergers of large chunks of the fiction content on Wikipedia, it is quite likely that this list may contain remnants of former articles. We can hardly present "list"-class articles as an alternative to individual articles if we then delete the lists. --Ckatzchatspy 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to concur with Ckatz's comments above. If articles on things like fictional spaceships are being deleted or merged (pretty much the Enterprise and Galactica are the only fictional ships that will pass the notability criteria these days), then lists are the only other viable option, whether a concise list like this, or something like the episode lists that have a bit more detail. Either allow one or the other, or push for an outright ban on such articles. I see no problem with this list as someone wanting to put in the effort can verify the existence of these ships (verifiability, not truth, remember) in the works cited. That said, the article should be reorganized into works of fiction, as dividing up into categories like "small craft" require editors to think, which violates WP:SYNTH 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists should not be used as an end run around our verifiability, notability, and no-original-research policies. JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, please note I was in the process of appending to my original comment when you added your post, and part of my addition actually addresses an element of what you write. NOR is once again being misunderstood here, however, as the existence of a ship within a piece of fiction is not NOR in any respect as it is not "new knowledge" created by an editor, but simply a reference to an already-existing work. And there cannot be an "end run" when the purpose of the list is to acknowledge the existence of ships that under the ever-more-Draconian notability guidelines here, are no longer allowed to have individual articles. Therefore both the verifiability and NOR issues are moot in this list, and the list exists in lieu of creating a bunch of articles that may not satisfy WP:N on their own. That's why we have episode list articles, for exactly that same reason. There is no difference whatsoever here; the list in question just needs to be organized differently, is all. 23skidoo (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO, plus the grouping is possibly original research. Yet another fancruft dump. Though there is the possibility to split and refine inclusion criteria and delete only the non-notable stuff. Like the list of fictional swords, it's just too vast, and some works of fictions have tons and tons of named spaceships, making maintenance and size a major issue (under WP:UNDUE).--Boffob (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Boffob, the issues with this list are numerous, primarily with WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO, undue weight and original research. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and Delete per WP:CLN. It's already broken out into subcategories, even! Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An indiscriminate list and helpless fancruft. A category works just as well. Tavix (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I can't really add that much to what has been said- that it is a hopeless, sprawling, virtually unsourced, pointless, indiscriminate, fancrufty list. I will disagree with 23skidoo's assertion that our notability standards are getting stricter. In the six months or so that I've been back I have observed that the reverse has been true. Our standards for material on fictional subjects has gone from being unacceptably lax to pretty much nonexistent. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, there has been a tendency to treat AfD discussions as a vote which means you need only a handful of fanboys going "OMG! Keep! Keep! It's mega important!" to cancel out people who actually argue in terms of policy. The second reason is the proliferation of myths like "Spin-off articles don't need to demonstrate independent notability." They do. Claiming otherwise leads to a lot of crappy articles about aspects of works of fiction that have no relevance or importance outside it, as well as a tendency to believe that such spin-off articles don't even need to be sourced. This terrible article is a textbook example of why I hold the opinions I do, and why I argue them every chance I get. Reyk YO! 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I commented above about my preference for list articles over categories, but I would like to raise another point. Numerous editors have contributed to this article in many hundreds of edits over nearly five years (I should state that I am not one of them). A process that allows this sort of effort to be destroyed in a day or two on the say-so of a small number of people who might have randomly chanced upon this deletion discussion is dangerous to Wikipedia. It risks alienating large numbers of valuable contributors who see their long-term efforts summarily dismissed. I do have some sympathy with those who feel that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information, but I also strongly believe that due recognition must be given to the efforts of ordinary editors. Matt 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
    • Generally, sympathy for the effort people have put in is not accepted as a reson to keep. Reyk YO! 01:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of proper sourcing is bad enough, but the real problem here is that this is an indiscriminate list, which Wikipedia is not.  Xihr  23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: LOL @ "Triviafarm" Ryan4314 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wikipedia needs an article on fictional spacecraft which currently redirects here. This article is a good start, but needs firm pruning to make it not a list. If it's not a list then the above delete arguments fail. The article would need expanding on general themes and trends within fiction, history of various ideas etc. etc. Since the article can be saved in this way, it should not be deleted. If it's deleted the article the wikipedia needs will be harder to write.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good riddance to a long list of unsourced trivia (violating our no original research policy) which is full of red links or items which will never be notable enough to be any other color but red. JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unreferenced material can be removed at any time, but that's not enough to delete an article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If removing unreferenced material means removing almost the whole content of the article then yes, that is a reason to delete. Reyk YO! 01:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be a dispute over page content only. Policy states that Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Policy also states that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed and Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline should be deleted. An article that has been gutted of all unverifiable and non-notable content still qualifies if that's all there was to begin with. Reyk YO! 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't really think that you've attempted to find reliable sources on all potentially notable spacecraft and failed. For that to be so, there would have to be no notable fictional spacecraft.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list that makes the encyclopedia better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. Please see WP:USEFUL. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly the kind of feeble non-argument I was ranting about earlier. Reyk YO! 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, your argument is that it's better that the wikipedia isn't useful, and hence are encouraging deletion? I consider that that is far worse, and remind you that WP:IAR is policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoa, whoa, whoa. Way to misrepresent my position. My argument is that this article violates specific policies and guidelines, as I mentioned in my first post in this discussion. If your only argument to keep is that it's "useful", then you have no argument to keep whatsoever. If it doesn't meet very basic requirements such as verifiability and notability then it doesn't matter how "useful" it is, it's outside the scope of what should be covered in an encyclopedia. Also, the ignore all rules policy is not a license to do as you please. Reyk YO! 07:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Rewrite alot of this should exist as separate lists in various fictional universe articles/aritcle sets. A Lists of fictional spaceships could be created to direct to them. A Fictional spaceship/fictional spacecraft article needs to be built. Only highly notable spaceships should remain in this particular list. (ie. USS Enterprise, Millennium Falcon, TARDIS, Battlestar Galactica) These should exist in popular culture and are known apart from their fictional backgrounds. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "Do you have any idea how many nonnotable fictional spaceships are out there?" The WP:NOT#IIINFO problems of this list will only get worse, unless you create a sensible inclusion criterion (can't think of one except only listing spaceships with articles, but there's already Category:Fictional spacecraft for that). – sgeureka t•c 08:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced. Redundant to the category. Borders on indiscriminate. Whether or not we have an article on "fictional spacecraft" is unimportant. The startlingly vast majority of fictional spacecraft are non-notable, so their inclusion in this list would amount to just pulling the names from the fictional works (or copying right from fansites). Protonk (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. McWomble (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not because I don't agree it isn't listcruft or the like, but this is a problem when we talk about typically non-notable fictional elements and limitations of categories. If every element of this list had its own article, then absolutely this would be better as a category; this "category" is indefinite in size and thus a list seems inappropriate. However, I'm sure most here agree that not every spaceship listed here is sufficiently notable for its own article per WP:N and WP:FICT. Categorization presently does not seem to allow categorizing on a section of an article, which would be a great workaround to prevent the creation of such lists, but as there is no such thing, it does make sense to have a list to act as a category in lieu. A category of fictional spacecraft seems completely appropriate, but to exclude elements because they don't have a full article dedicated to them is not helpful to readers that are looking for that. There's certainly cleanup here that needs to be done, however - it should not attempt to sort by "class" but instead be alpha based on name or source (or tablify to be sorted on both). --MASEM 14:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dur, changing to Delete because the solution is easy: Each spaceship listed that does not have its own article should have a redirect (which are cheap) and redirects can be categorized just like any other article. Some pipe link tricks may have to be done to make category read nicely. --MASEM 14:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have boldly edited the list based on the suggestion from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia. It still contains over a dozen entrys. Shortened version is no longer WP:NOTDIR. Stick to guidelines and this list is not listcruft. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ckatx, 23skidoo. And article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - impossible to ever be complete, and of very dubious encyclopaedic value. Infinitely better off as a category. - fchd (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No cogent reason to delete is presented and our editing policy encourages us to develop such articles further. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The list is a patchy and haphazard collection. Most named spaceships from the SF literature are missing, including all culture ships (e.g. GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul, GSV Lasting Damage, GCU Grey Area). Any attempt at completeness is doomed to fail, and thus the criteria for inclusion will remain either random or based on individual editors' whims. This is clearly a case for which Category:Fictional spacecraft should suffice. I'm all in favour of an article Fictional spacecraft if encyclopedic and based on reliable sources instead of original research; this list is not it.  --Lambiam 07:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. I see that an article Fictional spacecraft has just been created, but it appears to me to be as delendum as this one.  --Lambiam 08:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep , but re-list the ones that were on this page before the AFD was added. It seems that only the latest, more renowned ones like the SW ships are now left on this shortened page and many of the classical works have been taken off spanning the 50s and 60s. That was a Golden Age in sci-fi and this AFD is a sure fire way to lose a lot of valuable creations forever. Gilgamesh007 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another indiscriminate list. Themfromspace (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep a list of anything in notable fiction (and "notable" fiction is implied in all such articles) is not indiscriminate, as it includes only those meeting a rational criterion, and excluding the 99% in the 99% of fiction in the world that isn't notable. That doesn't mean we should have an article for [ anything ] in fiction , but we should for all things which are characteristic elements of multiple fictions. spaceships is one. If the list is not complete for the ones mentioned in Wikipedia article, the answer is to improve it. The great advantage of this over a category is that the entries can specify the work of fiction involved. That's the case for al [ ] in fiction articles. DGG (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleteindiscriminate list. They are tenths of science fiction films out there and some of them have tenths of spaceships. Where should I start: Star Wars, Battelstar Galactica, Star Trek? And... of course, we have the video games coming: Wing Commander, Starcraft, etc. We then have the books, the radio shows, etc. Interesting detail in The Man Who Wasn't There a UFO appears, does this fit to the list as well? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 30 November 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_spaceships&oldid=1138011214"