Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (2nd 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Command Carrier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fictional spaceship. It's been 2 months since the first AfD nomination. Practically nothing was improved. Many other Farscape articles have been AfD'ed since, and all that's clear is that they have been abandoned by fandom, so I have been merging them in the past few days to avoid another AfD. I feel the content of this article cannot be merged anywhere and is nonnotable on its own. It is already mentioned in Races in Farscape and is otherwise (sourced) WP:FANCRUFT. As I said in the Prod (which was denied because of the last AfD), I wouldn't mind turning this article into a redirect if someone thinks it has a future. But it shouldn't remain in its current state. – sgeureka t•c 00:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn; merge anything useful to a main article if desired. JJL (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete & merge useful data That's the problem with fancruft, they eventually move on and leave behind lots of stuff that is uninteresting, unmaintained and unrelated to reality. No offense meant to anybody, I used to do MMORPG fancruft back in the early '60s. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Proposer is saying that this material can't be merged elsewhere and it's too soon since the last AFD. See WP:NOEFFORT.  I did a quick book search myself which leads me to believe that more is possible.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have been working on Farscape articles in the past few days because no one else is (i.e. I put a lot of effort into bringing these inline with WP:FICT, including going to Deletion Review, and I don't see a future for the article content). Last AfD closed with if not improved further, can be the subject of another AfD after a few months - it's been two months and nothing (not even a word) was improved. There has been plenty of time for interested editors, and if not proven otherwise, I'll take the google books as just retelling the plot (against WP:NOT). I'll be happy to withdraw this nom if others can bring this article in line with WP:FICT; I have done all I could. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Kudos to Daniel for his comment; spot-on. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no time limit for an article to be improved. That isn't a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Races in Farscape. I don't think this spaceship deserves an article of its own, but it would be fine as a few sentences in that article. If this article does get merged or deleted, the category should then be deleted, as this is its only member. (Note that Moya (Farscape) no longer has its own article - and it's considerably more notable than this one.) Terraxos (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have sort of a soft spot for these articles since they are sort of what got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Yes in hindsight there are issues, mostly the in-universe perspective. As for the notability question of ficational subjects that seems to be a fuzzy topic on the best of days (and I'm inclined to think this is notable), and the guideline itself appear to be disputed at the moment. Usualy it seems to come down to popularity and how many users like the subject. Farscape beeing somewhat obscure in the grand scheme of Sci-fi shows is at a disadvantage here I guess, while obscure minor characters from Star Wars expanded universe novels or games tend to stick around (no I'm not trying to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just an observation). I'm also a bit puzzled as to why there is not even a "List of Farscpae spacecraft", it would seem a far better solution than the outright deletion most Farscape spacecraft articles. Instead they seem to be shoehorned into vaguely related articles (such as the list of races) and reduced to maybe a single sentence. I guess in the end of the day my reasons for wanting to keep it boils down to mostly "I like it" with a dash of "does no harm" (wich is why I'm not making this a "vote" as such), but I would like to point out that WP:FICT is hardly an iron clad rule, it is entierly permissable to have "sub articles" about elements of an overall notable work of fiction (Farscape in this case, and Command Carriers are a fairly major plot element of Farscape). This is not a kind of article we have to delete per some policy. Granted it's not the best of articles, and it haven't improved a lot lately, but I feel people have been a little to eager to delete these kinds of articles lately (unlike say a poorly sourced negative bio about a marginaly notable living person). Ok, yeah I've been around long enough to know how these things work, just because there is a tonne of other stuff that need deletion more badly doens't mean other stuff is kept, and people have differnet priorities. Mostly just wanted to vent of a little pent up "frustration" after noticing that pretty much all the articles I've created or contributed a lot to when I got into Wikipedia have gotten either deleted outright, or first merged to a list and then deleted lately (I've never claimed to be a major contributor content wise), just the way of the wiky though I guess. Sorry about the rant, though hopefully some food for thought. --Sherool (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Your comment is quite welcome, and I hope I can shed some insight. (1) WP:FICT is not disputed for what notability means, but what the right way is to deal with nonnotable stuff (e.g. discussion/merging/redirecting/prod/AfD). (2) The reason that no List of Farscape spacecrafts was made is because at the time I merged all races, the Peacekeeper (Farscape) article had already been deleted in AfD (I revived it in Deletion Review) and I had no way of knowing that it contained some bits of spacecraft material it would have that I could merge into a new list. I also admit my own bias here that I don't see the point of almanach-like information about CG spacecrafts, when all the real-world information I know of is "it was made in CG". And as far as I can see, Farscape articles have been abandoned, so I saw little in hope in someone else getting these articles up to WP:WAF/WP:FICT standards, and I merged all merge-worthy information. This article is a leftover, and I prefer a redirection/deletion until the time comes that somebody can show that it has potential, as I don't really see any. (I might be wrong, and AfD is there for discussion for a reason.) – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PLOT. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination. Agree completely. Eusebeus (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability and verifiability. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Many other Farscape articles have been AfD'ed since, and all that's clear is that they have been abandoned by fandom" - well, of course they've been "abandoned by fandom", their work keeps being swept aside. It's ridiculous to mass nominate articles and then use "people have stopped working on these articles" as a justification for wiping out the survivors. Also, I note a number of "merge and delete" votes above. I must remind everyone that this is actually illegal; the GFDL requires that the contributor history be retained. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact is, almost none of the former Farscape subarticles passed WP:FICT despite sufficient "warning". There was no "work", there was just plot-plot-plot, with a little original research thrown in. Hence these articles should all have been deleted. To avoid that, I spent some days to save what was reasonably worth keeping per WP:FICT, and proposed/nominated the remaining two out of 35 articles for deletion. Please be more considerate of the people trying to free wikipedia of things that don't belong. – sgeureka t•c 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's no time frame for an article to be improved. I just can't see a valid reason to delete this article. As it was mentioned, many Farscape articles have been nominated before AND the nomination for all of them have been resolved and closed. Just my opinion. Loukinho (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the articles for the Ancients, the Peacekeepers, the Sebacean and Farscape One ended in a delete/redirect several weeks/months ago, which somehow still didn't cause an improvement drive for FS articles. Also, WP:DEADLINE (to which I think you are refering) states the we can wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. This article has not established its significance for 2.5 years, and it seems it never will. By today's standards, the article should never have been created in the first place. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I personally don't think you read what I wrote. I never mentioned the ESSAY that links to WP:DEADLINE. I just said that there's no time frame for an article to be improved. I just can't see a valid reason to delete this article. I do believe that a few articles have been deleted before and I'm not arguing that in any ways whatsoever, I'm just saying that many Farscape articles have been nominated before AND the nomination for all of them have been RESOLVED AND CLOSED. I believe even more that since this is an article that has been nominated before, it makes no sense TO ME to stick with this afd. Again, this is just my OPINION. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found by Colonel Warden. --Pixelface (talk) 16:49, 21 December 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.