Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictitious domain name


 * 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. Sancho 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious domain name
indiscriminate and never ending list. WP:NOT. Crossmr 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The fiction from which these items are drawn have nothing in common beyond happening to mention a non-existent (or in some cases, existing for promotional purposes) domain name or website. This tells us nothing about fictitious domain names, the fiction from which they are drawn or the real world. Otto4711 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but expand descriptive text to avoid critiques like Otto's. --164.107.222.23 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to List of fictitious domain names. It is a list. Keep it because the information is useful to several topics, for example the use of information technology in movies, the world wide web in popular culture, and other interesting topics. --User:Krator (t c) 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not a particularly compelling argument, but even if it were I dispute the notion that a list of fake domain names is useful to anyone studying IT in film or any other topic. Otto4711 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. It seems as though an article on fictitious domain names could be written (much like the more-established 555 telephone numbers). That said, this may well not be the basis for such an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which consists mainly of a jumble of trivia and speculation. 555 telephone numbers and ficticious domain names are not the same though. 555 numbers are real in some places, and occur frequently. There is no pattern to ficticious domain names.--Crossmr 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point, and never let it be said that I'd object strongly if the decision goes against me in this situation. Still, my gut feeling is that there might be certain points which can be sourced properly and form the nucleus of an article. Are there certain fictitious domain names which turn up over and over again, for example? Are there any which were thought to be fictitious at the time they appeared on screen but actually redirect to someone's homepage? That kind of thing. It's late here and I'm not thinking clearly, but maybe some of that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is the encyclopedic value beyond that? That sounds like it would be completely based on trivia that wouldn't give a reader any greater understanding. TV/Movies/Books all use fake domain names for the same reason they use fake telephone numbers. The greater understanding can be explained in one or two sentences, they don't want to provide free advertising for someone, and they don't want to take the time to register a real one. If a "fictitious" domain name redirects to a real one, then its not really fictitious is it? If the domain name follows a proper format (www.name.legal extension)then I don't think it could ever be listed here. In fact many of the entries on this page are not fictitious domain names, but domain names which companies tied in to game/movies that were real, and actually put content on.  That alone demonstrates the problems here. Look at the introduction A fictitious domain name is a domain name used in a work of fiction or popular culture to refer to an Internet address that does not actually exist.  Yet a good 1/3 of that page contains examples of sites which are actually in existence (even as 1 page promo items).--Crossmr 12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, fair point. This is almost certainly not the beginning of an article on fictitious domain names, even assuming that one could be written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 7 July 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.