Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indiana Jones artifacts


 * 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. Not an easy one, right on the border numerically, but the concerns about out-of-universe sourcing being unavailable were never really answered or refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Indiana Jones artifacts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is very interesting as trivia, extremely interesting in fact, but in the end it is just trivia and fancruft with no real sourcing, and thus has no place on Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see eight sources listed, so it is not like there is nothing. The most this list calls for is a request for more sources. This is of interest to numerous readers and deletion argument that uses terms like "fancruft" is unhelpful, in my view. Jus  da  fax   21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep These artifacts are the central components of the plots. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If i thought those sources were strong enough, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of putting the article up. The sourcing is extremely weak. As for it being fancruft, I really don't know what else to call it. Outside of the Indiana Jones fans, I seriously doubt if anyone would care about any of the items on the list, in fact the image is that of an Indian Jones cosplay event. How much more "fancruft" can you get? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - While some of these are based on real-world objects, like the Ark, the list is presented in-universe, eg a violation of WP:NOT. There is one out-of-universe source regarding the Ark, but that feels like the only concession to make this list appropriate. As such, this is mostly a fan listing that can go on some wiki but not appropriate here.  (The individual works do talk about it, however.) --M ASEM  (t) 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Masem, this violates WP:NOTPLOT, and there are more appropriate places to discuss the artifacts. Claritas § 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above violation of WP:NOTPLOT. This would be more appropriate for an Indiana Jones Wiki. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete statements like "these are central to the plot" need to be cited to reliable third party sources. Since there are no such sources to WP:verify notability, we're left with only editor opinion about whether this warrants an article, which isn't how things are done on Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as an important theme/plot element of the Indiana Jones franchise - the parent article is already at 31 kb of prose and could be longer with more material. Hence this would be better in daughter article due to length concerns of parent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber. Fictional franchise centered around artifacts, huge blockbusters (well, except for #4), and there's somehow a difficulty demonstrating that such a spinout has sufficient independent notability?  I think not. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sue Rangell and Masem. I agree with Holyfield1998, this would only be appropriate for an Indiana Jones Wiki. Jucchan (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber. This is a useful list, giving that many of the artifacts have independent notability. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2013 (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.