Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Express Ship (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Neil ☎ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Express Ship[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Planet Express Ship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was previously nominated in October 2006 and has seen no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - This passed the first AfD overwhelmingly without any mention of the article needing improvement. Torc2 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but if it is important to the show, then it should be included in the shows article, and unless it is actually notable, it doesn't need its own page. We're half way there with this, already sufficiently mentioned elsewhere, now lets get rid of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written and well referenced to episodes. The top 100 Wikipedia searches are for information on movies and television episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep article really is well written. And about the notability, well, it is a part central to a most famous tv show.. Allthough notability is not inherited. Count this as an ILIKEIT vote, i guess. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This already survived one AfD. Why's it being brought up again? The article is fine, and there's far too much information to merge back into the main Futurama article. Besides, we have a Starship Enterprise article. Torc2 (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change, but notability is permanent. It was agreed in the first vote that the ship was sufficiently notable. Basically all this AfD is check to see if the show is currently less popular than it was this time last year, which certainly goes against the spirit of WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. Torc2 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To those who want to keep the article, when you say its notable, please demonstrate how, as this process allows for the establishment of notability with reliable sources, so we know your right. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Planet Express Ship is an important element of Futurama. The well-written information currently contained in the article would be lost if it would be merged into the Futurama article. Furthermore, the article about the ship would overwhelm the Futurama article if it were to be merged in.-- danntm T C 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer, please remember to only consider arguments that actual have something to do with Wikipedia policy such as notability and reliable sourcing, not "I like it" and "It's useful". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's a significant character on a notable TV show, voiced by a very notable actress (granted, for only one episode). It has its own action figure (one of only five characters) and Planet Express ship generates 1.47m Ghits. This has more than adequately passed WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but shorten. - Featured in more episodes than most of the main characters. However, plenty of the information in that article is non-verifiable cruft. Needs cleanup. - Chardish (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have trimmed the in-universe cruft quite a bit and added a reference which should help somewhat. This was a "quick fix" so I'll try to take a more in depth look the next couple days, I have a couple other sources I may be able to tap but I have homework to do tonight... Stardust8212 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with the added refs, just scrapes through as a sub-article. RMHED (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - From WP:FICT. "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style." Seems like that's the case here. Torc2 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the very next part of the sub-article section from WP:FICT goes on to say; "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible." So in other words it still needs to be individually sourced with real world info. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it passes notability guidelines by being a ship that appeared in games, a television show, made for DVD movie, etc. as the major space vessel of the show. Some spaceships, whether it's the Millennium Falcoln or Planet Express Ship have considerble significance and recognizability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be improved with references it will have asserted notability, not because it was "in a movie". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, they even made toys of it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is it? That wont sustain a whole article, that would probably fit as a part of a popular culture section for the main Futurama article. If we find a lot more, thats what we call notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, check here for more. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My heart is warming toward the article, Stardust, and I thank you for being the only one at AFD that seems to understand that this is an opportunity not to complain but to improve articles. If you can find just a bit more, I think I can support keeping the article. Good work. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD'ing an article isn't a good way to "suggest" improvement. It's essentially taking a gun to an editor's head and saying "fix this like I want now or die!" This article went untagged for notability or sources, and was not tagged merger. AfD should only be used if there's nothing salvageable about the article. Torc2 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there may still not be enough for its own article, and a few hours ago it was garbage. Would you prefer I say "delete it anyway?" I am willing to admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong, and in this case I may have been mistaken, and it will be to Wikipedia's benefit. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that you tag articles and give editors a couple weeks to fix them up instead of immediately throwing an AfD at them and forcing them to fix it in a couple days. There are plenty of editors who don't check Wikipedia in a five-day span, let alone have enough time to put in the necessary research to fix the article up.Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for many that I feel might be notable I do, and for the ones I suspect have no notability I do a Prod or Afd, which is standard. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prior AfD survival and lack of tags didn't trigger any worries that your suspicions might be wrong? That the article was largely fixed to your satisfaction in a matter of hours (even though it would have survived in its previous state) doesn't make you think you might have been too harsh? I'm just saying that you could keep the stress levels down and the AfD boards a little clearer if you give people a nudge through more traditional ways, as WP:AFD suggests. Torc2 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I do, with articles that have a reasonable chance of being notable. This would be an exception, as the vast majority of the Afd's I have nominated have been deleted. And the previous AFD usually means that people with no regard for process or policy have blocked legitimate deletion. So I understand your point, but I do what you suggest already, even if this is a keepable article, which still needs to be established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as has been stated above the ship is notable as part of a larger topic and duplication of some plot elements from the episode pages is needed to write a complete article on the topic (it could be trimmed more). The Futurama article doesn't have room for this topic as it stands now so it is sensible to split it off. The article is reasonably well referenced for a fictional topic (I know, I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and I would note that many early !votes were prior to my cleanup and may not reflect the current article, though those people may still not find the article notable and that's fine too, I would ask them to take a second glance though. I suggest that if there is not sufficient consensus to keep this article as a stand alone that the relevant sections be merged to List of recurring robot characters from Futurama (please don't also nominate that for deletion, I need more time and there are more sources for it, I swear) where it kinda fits, sorta, maybe, or at least better than anywhere else besides it's own article which brings me back to my first point... Stardust8212 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merge, but I don't know if that would be the best parent article, too bad there isn't a technology in Futurama article...I agree, it is perhaps a better merger candidate at this point, Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was Technology (Futurama) which was merged into List of fictional devices in Futurama which was deleted four days ago. Alas! Stardust8212 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about this it's possible that a better Technology in Futurama article could be created following the formula for Religion in Futurama. I would need to combine elements from Robots in Futurama (which is unreferenced anyway and could simply be redirected), Planet Express Ship and Suicide Booth and could also use some of the discussion from pages such as List of recurring human characters from Futurama#Celebrity heads. Obviously this would not be a list like the previously deleted content and I'd need to flesh out the real world content and babysit it quite a bit but it might be possible. If the decision here is to delete I may ask for a sandbox version of this article to build off of and if the decision is to keep perhaps some interested parties would come discuss this with me on a relevant talk page. Just another thought. Stardust8212 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have noticed Juggs is doing this to a lot of futurama articles. I don't know what to make of that - this article has appeared in more episode of Futurama then the USAF Prometheus has in Stargate, and the Prometheus can keep it's page. One of many precidents that has been set - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter; what matters is that this article has references and notability, and the arguement that "other articles suck equally or more" doesn't exempt this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just admitted this article has references and notability - why then are you nominating it for deletion? I can see 10 references and 3 other links alone citing this page for references, why is that insufficient? It would simply be easier to put "citation needed" where necessary. - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (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/Planet_Express_Ship_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166567013"