Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional landship


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fictional landship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be mostly original research with a random assortment of details pulled from various fictional series not backed by any sources. TTN (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (I'm the editor who created this article by WP:SPLITting from Landship). I would support removal of unsourced info (and the picture?) from the article, but deleting the article would mean that those editors who want info about Gundam etc in wp would (once again) be putting their info into the Landship article. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Landship. The general concept seems notable enough, but seems to exist mainly in the world of fiction.  Real landships tend to be things that have been proposed and/or tried but didn't work out.  There is probably enough interest in the topic so that an article would be useful, and it would be better to give the readers the real world info in the same place as fictional info so that they can be better informed. The material about other large real vehicles is also good for background.  An encyclopedia is about education after all. (BTW serious SF authors such as Wells and Heinlein were making real-world predictions and/or proposals, not just entertaining their audience.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I would imagine that Fictional landship could be much expanded, and would overwhelm the parent article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Rpclod (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simple description of elements of notable works of fiction is not original research. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is a tough one.  Some of this content looks valid, but there is also a lot of dubious unsourced material.  I agree that a full merge would overwhelm the parent article, so I think the best course is a selective merge - e.g. perhaps leave out the sections of unsourced prose and just take the better examples.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) is right when he says that mentioning elements from fiction is not original research (after all, we have an article on the Starship Enterprise!). I also think that Rich is right when he says that adding this article to Landship would overwhelm that article. Finally, are the fictional landships covered in this article notable? Yes, The Land Ironclads, the Traction Cities and the land battleships of Gundam are all notable in their own rights, and the concept as a whole is sufficiently widely mentioned in speculative fiction to be worth including here. Sourcing for the unsourced items should of course be improved. RomanSpa (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2014 (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.