Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:58, 30 November 2007

List of planets in Futurama

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep notable show, consistent with treatment of Star Wars cruft etc. JJL (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its cruft, as you say, why would we want to keep it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same reasons given in the other AfDs for these sub-articles. They probably should have been proposed together. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I do we do that? As I said about notability, every article should stand on its own, for keeping or deletion. Being a subarticle doesn't qualify an article to be unnotable or a plot repetition like this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the arguments for and against deletion are the same. All the verbiage spent in those AfDs apply here too. I'd rather not have the same discussion five times. Torc2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't care if it's cruft - people are too quick to delete things on Wikipedia. We have an opportunity here to create the most comprehensive database of information ("trivial" or otherwise) in history. If people don't want to read the article, they don't have to - why would we want to deprive interested parties of this information? It's not like Wikipedia has limited space for articles. Danflave (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Read up on policies instead of assuming Wikipedia must be the place for anything people create. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nope, it's a kakistocracy. 137.22.226.140 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a bureaucracy, despite them having a rule in place that basically says, "..well, NUH UH." 216.37.86.10 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the information may be "duplicative," I believe aggregation of this information in one page creates significant value. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information here may exist elsewhere, but this format makes it easy to find in one place, and I think that has a great value to interested parties 24.11.202.83 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is on a sliding scale here. I would suggest keeping the major planets, severely trimming the information on the minor worlds visited, and entirely deleting those only referenced in the show unless they are also referenced in independent sources. 70.112.121.70 (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no need to delete this, perhaps trim the article a bit to only list the more commonly referenced planets (no need to keep one that was referenced just once). Ariel. (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A definite keep. Very informative and no different then specifics for any marvel comic
Keep - This is one is a great, informative article. 92.80.84.111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to a Futurama wikia, otherwise delete. There is not a single assertion of real-world notability (as necessary per WP:FICT), and I doubt that real-world coverage about these planets even exists. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of effort went into it and it contains accurate, useful information. Stop rubbishing others' work because it's "unimportant". --90.197.75.110 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is no less important than any article on wikipedia about Klingons. Jlam4911 13:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is good and informative. eyelessfade 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frankly, whether this particular article abides exactly by the rules or not, Wikipedia has many, many similar pages, suggesting either a near-complete lack of enforcement, or that this article does not actually fall afoul of those rules. Why delete this one? Peter Crabtree 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article appears to have a following and a desire in the community to keep and improve. There is no reason to delete. rmosler 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it stands. Rescue? Currently, it has just about no sources, but I'm sure it's notable as a topic. There has to be stuff out there, see the almost 2 million Ghits. Bearian 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another bad faith deletionist nomination that damages the integrity of this site. It's embarrassing. All of these keep votes will be discredited by 'vets' soon enough. 216.37.86.10 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has its place on Wikipedia. Remember, wiki is not paper. MikeCapone 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As usual, the keep voters resort to both ignoring policy and personal attacks instead of actually fixing a very deficient article. The best that can be shown is a random google search with wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone has an actual policy argument or is going to attempt to actually improve the article, there is little hope for keeping. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Fun and interesting article about a show with a large following. Please do not delete. benatkin 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly a well-done and comprehensive article. There are a lot of similar articles on TV series that never get deleted. Vincent 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No notability, complete fan cruft. Why is everyone voting keep? It makes no sense.
Keep -- This is a valuable reference of our pop culture society.

Knowitall 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JNN WP:UGH 216.37.86.10 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am using notability to ask for verification through reliable out of universe sourcing, of which none has been demonstrated yet. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, delete & transwiki per sgeureka, then. Knowitall 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Keep -- Come on, Consistency demands this be kept. I have previously nominated the articles for single characters from a Half-Life sequel to be deleted, and was repeatedly told that it was insane to delete such articles, which remain and have remained for years.

-Keep- It's interesting and informative. It could be attached to the Futurama wiki, but deleting would be senseless.

Keep -- Although this article needs better sources, it is instructive and interesting. Definite keep.

Keep, all information is verifiable via the show and related books. Notability of some individual items may be in question, but this is an article on all of them. —siro χ o 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[List of planets in Futurama]]===
+{{not a ballot}}
 {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}