Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawkwing-class

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 all as articles about fictional spacecraft covered entirely from an in-universe perspective and with no sources, let alone to third party coverage. Feel free to recreate as articles about real-world ship classes. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkwing-class

Adding after AfD has begun; please ~~strike out~~ if you have a bona fide objection to its inclusion here -- its content is comparable to the articles listed above. --EEMIV (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles lack citations to reliable sources or assert -- let alone attempt to establish -- real-world notability. Also suffer from entirely in-universe-ismnessitude. See here and here for precedent for similar articles/discussion from another franchise. --EEMIV (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable fictional elements which have not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Articles consist entirely of in-universe statistics and design specifications and plot summary. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, with grasers and missiles, with LACs and superdreadnoughts, in rain and sleet and dead of night, from the early early morning to the late late night. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No assertion of notability through reliable sources=delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge all to a list as they are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Honorverse or fictional craft. Any issues can be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Also, precedents are irrelevant per WP:CCC. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in-universe fancruft has no relevance in the real world, therefore no relevance to a serious encyclopedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Some of these articles should never be outright deleted as they actually have names of real world historical classes of vessels and therefore if nothing else need to be rewritten accordingly, please note for example Talk:Courageous-class. Others, such as Talk:Katana-class, have variations and appearances in other universes beyond Honorverse. Thus, despite the mass nominations, each of these articles under question have considerably different degrees of notability and in some instances even the article titles can be salvaged to write the articles on the World War I ship class of the same name. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles addressing the real ships or uses elsewhere can be created anew -- although preferably in articles that correctly use hyphenation. (Most of these are bass awkwards -- "X class" or "X-class ship" would be correct; "X-class" and "X class ship" are incorrect. But that's a tangent.) --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not as easy as you think once the article is deleted, because sometimes when an article using the same title as an old one even if covering a totally new/different topic winds up being speedied as an attempt recreate a deleted article. Thus, we're best off keeping the article title in some of these instances and just rewriting it. As for the hyphenation in titles, that's a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT concern, i.e. just moving the articles to a different name. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we're talking past each other here. If someone wants to write about the real ships or these ships in other contexts, they should create the articles anew with the correct article title. That would have the benefit of generally avoiding overzealous speedy-deletion for those who keep track of deleted articles. Regardless, though, I don't find hypothetical "people might"s all that compelling. I'm addressing the current content, not content that isn't there but might at some point eventually appear. --EEMIV (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - An even more informative article would cover BOTH the historic ships and the new ships and would include research into publications on Honorverse to see if the fictional ships are named for the historic vessels, i.e. "Courageous class refers to a ship class from the World War I era as well as fictional ships in Honorverse" and so on. Moreover, some of these fictional classes apparently also are used in the Star Wars and Stark Trek fictional universes, which gives them notability beyond just one universe, and also would make them consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on either topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:RS. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, the Honoverse needs a wikia (if it doesn't already have one). Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't, then we provide a real service by having the information here, but even if it does have one, then that's not really a reason to delete, because technically every article we have likely appears or can appear in some other encyclopedia somewhere. An encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs is the compendium of all of those other wikis and encyclopedias. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 8 May 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.