Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Q-ships


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Q-ships

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Uncited trivia collection that is riddled with OR examples of similarity. Violates WP:NOT (and WP:NOT?) Eyrian 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - directory of loosely associated items stitched together through original research. Good catch. Otto4711 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ==Case for keeping==
 * First of all, this is my first proper attempt at making a case for keeping an article so even if I make a bad job for the defense this should be taken as a failure on my part and not be taken as reflecting on the merits of this article.


 * Second this article is new, as of this moment less than a day old, although it consists almost in its entirety of material contributed by other editors and now deleted from the original Q-ship article, I don't believe any of these contributers know of its existence. So for now it is friendless and beset upon by an editor who cannot abide its existence. Said editor having deleted this material from the original Q-ships article. It is apparent therefore that the two editors who have so far shown an interest in this article, myself and its nominator for deletion stand opposite each other, one in enmity for this article and I presume others articles like it, and myself as its unwitting champion in amity. Under such circumstance both I and User:Eyrian cannot be said to be neutral in this argument and at most our voices will counteract the others. I therefore ask that neither I nor Eyrian should act until a consensus of other editors without a vested interest in the survival or deletion of this article have had a chance to consider its survival; and that any possible execution should be stayed until such a time as the article has had a time to mature.


 * Because yes I concede that this article as it stands is flawed. However how many articles arrive fully fledged and flawless. Those flaws in format, in detail and in writing can be fixed with time. But will it be given this time?


 * I come now to the crux of the matter, does such an article have a place on Wikipedia? It was deleted by Eyrian as trivia and I suppose others who denigrate popular culture as trivia would agree with this. Indeed I would agree with Eyrian that this material has at best a tenuous right to existence in the Q-ship article proper, but I contest that it does have a place in a Fictional Q-ships article. If this article is deleted than it can only be on the grounds that all popular culture references should be deleted, and only reality and real things should be the subject of articles in Wikipedia. If only Q-ships as they existed in reality has a place in Wikipedia, than I suggest that articles such as HMS Thunder Child be deleted, as the logical extension of the no trivia school would mean that only steam rams as they existed in reality have a place in Wikipedia and this famous but fictional example is irrelevant, and while you're at it how about Space battleships and battlecruisers, the fiction section of HMS Surprise (1794), every ship that appears in Star Trek and List of Star Wars capital ships and every fictional person, object, ship and organisation in Wikipedia. (Okay I better stop there, I guess there are some editors out there who would want to do just that).


 * Even if it is conceded that fictional subjects have a place on Wikipedia, which I hope the majority of editors will do so, does that mean that this particular fictional subject has a right to survive? Q-ships as they existed in reality were remarkably unsuccessful for the amount of effort expended on them, and like the ironclad steam ram, they have been much more successful in fiction than they were in reality. That they have captured the imagination of writers and readers, means that for many what they know and understand of Q-ships will have stemmed from an exposure to Fictional Q-ships rather than to the reality. It can be hoped that an article on Fictional Q-ships (and it has been linked to do so) can serve as a bridge to those interested in fictional Q-ships to Q-ships in reality.


 * I've spent longer in this defense than seems to be the norm here, and I'll stand aside now to allow other voices their chance.KTo288 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your arguments here do not address the substantive policy issues raised by the nomination. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. If there are examples of actual fictional Q-ships that have been identified as such by reliable sources then that might demonstrate a basis for this article. But the things on this list have apparently not been identified in reliable sources or within the fiction from which they have been drawn as Q-ships. Gul Ducat never referred to his purloined vessel as a "Q-ship" for example. Thus, the list is nothing but the assumption by some editor or another, in the absence of sourcing, that a particualar fictional ship is, or worse, simply resembles, a Q-ship. This is original research and it has no place on Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article does little more than point out where they occur in fiction, and let's face it, fictional Q-ships are not all that different from real ones. Down this road, we'd end up with Fictional battleships, Fictional torpedo boats, Fictional left-handed redheads... (P.S. That's Dukat, not Ducat.) Clarityfiend 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd say this is over-categorization of fiction and is a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to content, as I have said I concede that this article as it is is flawed, and I'm not going to defend this article on the basis of what it is, but on the principle of what it may become, inline with Deletion_policy and Fancruft.


 * On the discussion page of the article (my apologies, but this is the first time I've participated in a Afd debate in such a way, and find myself in the deep end with regards the etiquette of this procedure) I received the replies that "...yes, there are interesting aspects of the cultural impact, they are not illuminated by a list of trivial references" and "...it's not a matter of growth;it's a matter of replacement" from the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion. From this I surmise that he or she would be interested in seeing a well written and sourced "Fictional Q-ships" but not the article as it stands. In this I guess we have a difference in approach.


 * Is it reasonable to expect articles to emerge from the foam full grown and perfect? I suggest that the opposite is true, I've participated on more than one article in which a scrawny summary and mass of conflicting views have grown into an article one can be proud of. Something happens along the way, an article attracts a critical mass of interested and knowledgeable editors and the article blooms. In this even badly written and incorrect content has its uses, as it will provoke said editors into action. However what is required is the seed crystal around which this progress can be made. Well I guess that one line about Fictional Q-ships on the Q-ship article proper may act as a grain of sand, but without time, space and the tolerance of editors intent on preserving Wikipedia's purity no critical mass or take off is possible.


 * There will of course be editors for whom such a take off is anathema. For such editors the sooner this article be nipped in the bud the better; and to these editors my answer is...okay you've got me, there is no possible argument that I can make that will convince you otherwise. We're not supposed to mention that articles and categories such as List of fictional medicines and drugs,List of fictional ships,Spacecraft in the Honorverse,and the Category Fictional towns and cities in the United States] that exist, are tolerated and nurtured.


 * So get out your knives and be done with it, delete the article. Because there is only way that the consensus this Afd is going and that is "delete". This article just hasn't had the time for any but those who wish its termination to take an interest in it, no chance to gain supporters to rally; these debates seemingly to be the prowling grounds of those whose only instinct is to delete.KTo288 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve--like all WP articles. The use of these cultural references indicates the relevance of the real-world equivalent. KTp288's detailed arguments are clearer than anything I could do in this rather unfamiliar territory, so I just refer to them. As he says, it's a difference in approach--I feel that anything that can potentially be written about encyclopedically is encyclopedic,. and that's how I understand the pillars of N and V. Any other interpretation leads to a specialized encyclopedia, and at the base of all the pillars is the purpose of WP: to produce a contemporary general encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You really ought to know better than this by now. If a fictional ship is not identified as a Q-ship in reliable sources then including it on a list of fictional Q-ships is original research. These are not examples of fictional Q-ships. All of your high-falutin' talk about what an encyclopedia might be means nothing in the face of the concrete policy objections. Address those. Otto4711 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any entries you think wrong, you are welcome to discuss on the article talk page. I don't consider  "inclusive" a particularly high-falutin' term or concept. If anyone is interested in building an encyclopedia containing only what a few people want it to contain, GFDL will let you do it as a subset of WP. Really-important-pedia.   DGG (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, and so leaving aside all of this "what an encyclopedia should be" chit-chat, do you have any sources at all that indicate that even a single item included in this article is a "Q-ship"? Whatever meta-discussions you may want to have, as far as this article goes do you have any fact-based answer at all to the policy problems? Otto4711 04:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT Jay32183 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR unless reliable sources can be found describing these fictional spaceships (or ships like them) as "Q-ships". If any of the sources use the "Q-ship" terminology, that would help considerably.  If some encyclopedia of science fiction compares them to Q-ships, that would be a conclusive argument for keeping. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. The majority of the entries are not described Q-Ships i the original media, let alone by reliable sources. Nuttah68 11:04, 20 August 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.