Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination)

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 delete. The arguments for deletion (poor sourcing, months given for improvement) were much stronger in quality and number than the keep arguments (too many nominations) IMO. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command Carrier

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Command Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable spaceship. Third nomination after this and this AfD (keep and no consensus, was also unsucessfully prodded twice, with one prod2). No improvement since the closing of the first(!) AfD four months ago, and the article still fails to assert any kind of notability. The only sources are a fansite and the TV channel's website, written in the main character's in-universe perspective (i.e. no real-world information), and the channel website has a page for every minor element of the show (i.e. no claim of notability). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowler (Farscape) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farscape One for similar nonnotable Farscape spacecrafts. – sgeureka t•c 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This is contrary to the spirit of the current injunction. It is also a only a few weeks since the last AFD for this article which is disruptive repeat nomination. At that time, I found some promising sources. Since we have no deadline, a claim of WP:NOEFFORT is still weak. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the injunction was intended to refer to all fiction-related articles instead of just episodes and characters, it certainly would have said so. But it doesn't, and arbcom still hasn't explained what it means, so neither you nor I can claim to know what the spirit of the injunction is after all. As for disruption: read the closing rationale of the first AfD from 18 weeks ago and then check the diff I provided. The article widely failed WP:FICT then, and it still does. – sgeureka t•c 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked by the injunction this is close enough, and consensus on the talk page and other AfDs is that it is to be interpreted in a general sense. speedy close and possibly relist afterwards. Perhaps by then it may be clearer on a more general basis what is appropriate to delete, and what not. We will not benefit by having large numbers of pending cases to deal with all at once at the close of the arb com. DGG (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a recommendation or an admin decision? Because if it is the latter, I'd rather see this block seconded by an uninvolved admin who also comes to the conclusion that an injunction about "any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character" in an arbcom case titled "Episodes and characters" extends to nonnotable fictional spaceships. I am however fine with letting this AfD run its course. – sgeureka t•c 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the injunction-related articles are being indefinitely relisted for the duration of the the case, with the idea being that the AfDs should still be debated. They're just not going to be closed until the end of it. -- RoninBK T C 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the template says that this article is not injunction-related, because it only refers to episodes and characters. The template should either be reworded or removed, because the only character-spaceship I can think of is Moya (Farscape), who/which is not included in this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a spaceship we're talking about, an item from a fictional TV series, not a character or episode. You would have to interpret the injunction really broadly to think that this is covered by it. The injunction is not a free ride for all articles having anything to do with television series. The injunction directly covers fictional characters and episodes only. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect/merge Take you pick. I can't recall how many different ships there are in Farscape (didn't watch it much), so if this is excessive and we don't need this info at all, fine. If we do, trim it, because what we have here is too much plot without real world context. And no, the arbcom injunction does not apply to this AfD. The arbs wanted to make a poorly worded, poorly thought out injunction that is followed to the letter, so be it. -- Ned Scott 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nominator cannot cite any polices this article fails, I must say keep. --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (the latter of which is has been tagged for for 4 months). Any article expansion, it seems, would fail WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#STATS. No-one even attempted in the last four months to prove that this article can ever meet WP:WAF (which I admit is "just" a guideline). – sgeureka t•c 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors can consult the episodes it appears in, the policy on no original research does not apply. The article is more than mere plot summary so WP:NOT#INFO does not apply. This article is not a guidebook. Wikipedia has many articles on frogs but that doesn't make Wikipedia a "frog guide." WP:NOT#STATS also does not apply. --Pixelface (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you missed the "would" there. – sgeureka t•c 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so if someone expanded the article by adding a Reception section that would violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:NOT#STATS? --Pixelface (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My claim of the topic's nonnotability already includes that it is impossible to write a reception section in the first place. If you disagree, prove the opposite. Good luck. No one did/could in the last four months. – sgeureka t•c 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a violation of fait accompli where repetitive ProDs and AfDs are used to steamroll those that would like to keep the article because they see it as having potential. Ursasapien (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I believed this article had potential, I wouldn't be AfDing it. Asserting that this article has potential without any kind of reliable secondary sources (the SCIFI website is just as primary as the show itself), and then voting keep is just the same violation of fait accompli, but can't actually address my concerns. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm trying to "wear down opposition" by proving what's impossible to prove: that no sources/real-world information exists to make this article pass WP:FICT and WP:WAF. If four months is not enough for editors to fulfill their burden of proof, it'll be six months the next time, ad infinitum if they chose so. – sgeureka t•c 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, notability to a real world audience, consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on this particular work of fiction, plenty of published books on Farscape in guide or analytical format that deal with specicfic aspects of the show and that can and should be used to improve this article, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan, but it may be worth redirecting somewhere if there is an appropriate redirect target for this subject. RFerreira (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wish I could argue with against the application of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, but I can't, for we face the same arguments in the same circumstances. Four months -- or six months -- can prove nothing about the merits of an obscure subject in a volunteer project, the time scales are longer than that. The lemonperson's links show that there is a reasonable chance of being able to make the article compliant, I cannot in good conscience or some other archaic phrase like that pronounce it irredeemable. --Kizor 15:10, 1 March 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.