Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-17 Broadsword heavy bomber


 * 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 Re-nominate. ZFGokuSSJ1 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A-17 Broadsword heavy bomber

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm working to clean up all the Wing Commander related stuff on Wikipedia... this includes removing all continuity/fiction material that has no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. It's non-notable. ZFGokuSSJ1 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also continuity and have no place on Wikipedia.



(For the record, the following articles also had AfD notices attached but were not actually listed here: Pre-WC1 Confederation fighters, Winston Chang (Wing Commander), Arrow light fighter, Battleships (Wing Commander), KIS Sivar, Kilrathi Heavy Destroyer, Kilrathi Light Destroyer, Medium fighter, Miscellaneous Wing Commander fighters, Ralatha-class Destroyer, Spencer "Skip" Banbridge, John Dekker, Gilkarg nar Kiranka, H. Maximillian Kruger, Jacob Manley and Kevin Tolwyn. Bryan Derksen 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) )


 * Comment an article about a fictional spacecraft can be notable if sourced well. Imagine trying to delete the Millenium Falcon. -- Cyrus      Andiron   15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to a single article summarizing the various craft in the games/setting. I do think some coverage of the various craft found in the game is reasonable, but if not on the individual article level, a combined article would be acceptable to me.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, close this AFD as this single nomination is now too broad. This nomination now includes space ships, characters, and concepts like races.  And not just minor characters, but major characters in the series.  I'm sorry, but that's just not the best way to do things.  If you'd stuck to just ships, that'd be one thing, but when you nominated Christopher Blair and Geoffrey Tolwyn?  That's just excessive on your part and creates too much of a problem for people to consider.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The pages for individual games can (and do) summarize the ships. With perhaps one or two exceptions, the ships of Wing Commander aren't notable as individual concepts... we don't need a separate page full of 'fan fiction' background for a hundred different WC spaceships. LOAF 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * delete broadsword, I haven't ad the time to review the rest. It's nothing but in-universe information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. FrozenPurpleCube 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & Close All right, this AfD needs to be closed. You cannot lump all of these together under one broad nomination. Articles on fictional characters and space ships can be notable if sourced properly. Something doesn't have to be true to be on Wikipedia, it just has to be verified by reliable secondary sources. These articles deal with various in universe topics and cannot be held to the same standard. -- Cyrus      Andiron   16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close This is no longer a blanket nomination, but a tarpaulin nomination. Prune it down a bit. DarkAudit 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It may appear to be a broad spectrum of WC-related articles, but they are all just un-cited irrelevant in-universe stuff. They all fit together in the same category -ZFGokuSSJ1 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste the rest of the afternoon wading through 30 or more articles to justify one nomination. DarkAudit 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a remarkable statement. I wonder why it is you don't believe the same care should be exercised when voting to close.  -Aclawson 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, nobody should be considered to be voting here, as AFD is not a vote, but a discussion. Anyway, the reason to close in the case of an overly broad nomination is usually obvious on its face.  Several dozen articles, a wide variety of subjects?  That's too much for due care to be exercised, and if you don't believe it, well, I don't know how to convince you.  I know I, like several other people aren't going to feel comfortable with it, and I noted above several cases where I feel the nominator's reasons don't apply.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said. My endorsement to close was because the nomination was too big to exercise due care for all the articles concerned. I could miss looking at one that could well be within guidelines to keep, but it could end up deleted as part of this huge list. DarkAudit 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a fairly straightforward list of redundant/untrue/un-cited information and hardly a "tarpaulin" nomination. It's sensible and clean.  -Aclawson 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close and separately relist (otherwise, please consider this a procedural keep vote). I realize and appreciate that there is a time and a place for mass-nominations but they need to be manageable. Personally, I won't vote on an AfD unless I've at least done my due dilligence research and made up my mind. If mass nominations aren't properly grouped together, it's even harder to view the articles in context and even if I only need a minute or two to come to a comclusion (which may or may not be the case), that's still a lot of time. More importantly, the whole point of AfD is to reach a consensus. If the articles in a mass nom deal with only loosely connected topics, it becomes near impossible to do just that. For a mass nomination to make sense, all nominated articles need to suffer from the same basic, inherent flaw. Just like we don't usually consider 'notability by association' a valid reason to keep an article, we can't automatically assume the opposite. And this is just too much. -- Seed 2.0 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can see the point made on several replies. I will categorize every article and re-submit them for deletion. -ZFGokuSSJ1 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair and reasonable compromise. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, There is no way so many articles are justified in ONE AFD, this sounds more like someone has an axe to grind. Who decides whether something is 'notable', is it personal opinion? Some of the entries are sizeable and well detailed. Douglasnicol 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While some of the fighters could be merged into another article or deleted outright, characters like Todd Marshall certainly are notable enough for their own articles. Cheers, Lanky ( YELL ) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: the community does (ie. all editors in good standing). But we use policy (which is, in turn, based on community consensus) to determine what satisfies the notability requirement and to avoid unfair or arbitrary results. Please be sure that you've read this. And please also consider reading WP:N and WP:5P, if you haven't already done so. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that so many articles in one AFD is overly much? Why is Wing Commander being selected (I'm not using the term singled out because it isn't neutral), there are probably god knows how many other fictional works that have as much if not more entries assigned to them.  And to just arbitarily delete them doesn't seem right.  Someone says its 'non notable', on what precise basis?  I might be opposed to the deletion of single articles, but to not just do that but to tack on 121 other articles seems really excessive. Douglasnicol 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record and since you asked: I do think it's too much. Please read my first comment above. --Seed 2.0 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose on the grounds that this list is way too big to be fairly evaluated, especially given the broadness and briefness of the nomination (they are "continuity" and "not-notable"? why?). I don't see how we could have a meaningful discussion about this, given their varied quality. (Perusing briefly, I see some that obviously should go and some that could probably pass muster with a little work, like Christopher Blair.) &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up I recall the mast deletion campaign a few months ago. Hundreds of mast stubs kicked the bucket over a month-long period, based on incremental nominations of 10-15 at a time. Yechiel Man  20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't, but I've heard about it, but this isn't even in incremental nominations, its a mass deletion campaign here. Plus, while some of these articles (I haven't had time to look at them all) may be stubs, there are a fair amount that have quite a bit of detail in them, it's not as if theres a couple of lines and thats it. Douglasnicol 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Close and relist separately. This is rather overloaded with articles to consider, and it's likely that even if it is in-universe stuff, many of the articles here do have what's necessary to stand alone. (Having said that, I'd suggest the ship types, in the next round of listings, could probably be merged to a list.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-While it does look like deletion (or perhaps listifcation/redirection) may be warranted in some of these cases, the nom is just too broad. All being from the same fictional universe is not sufficient reason to lump them in one mass AfD.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close and relist. This is a ridiculous amount of articles for a single Afd. This discussion cannot discuss the merits of every single article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; far too many articles to fairly evaluate all at once. I suggest strongly that ZFGokuSSJ1 withdraw this nomination and nominate a few (5-10) closely related articles at a time. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm going to withdraw my nomination for now! -ZFGokuSSJ1 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.