Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars vehicles


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. The position of most keep voters is that this list will prevent the creation of fancruft articles. Articles do not exist for the purpose of preventing the creation of other articles; they must stand and fall on their own merits. Furthermore, unlike List of Star Wars capital ships, this article is simply a collection of links. This is the sort of thing for which categories were made and a categorization system is already in place. Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Star Wars vehicles

 * Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics."  The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 17:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsure. While this provides a great way of displaying the cruft on one source, it also may encourage poeple to create seperate articles for the red links. This is a tough one. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. &mdash; Deckill e r 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Feedyourfeet 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete we have <> which seems to cover this just as well. --Pboyd04 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CSD Ste4k 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think A3 should apply to lists, or about 90% of them would have to go. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So A3 shouldn't apply to lists when the very guideline specificaly states it applies to "[a]ny article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title"? &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that it shouldn't apply - it doesn't apply, or we wouldn't even be here. There is content - however minor - aside from the links (in this particular case, where it says what each vehicle code stands for). Kafziel 19:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, CSD A3 was designed for cases where an article was just an external link to another website, or a link to another article (without using the redirect function). Not only does it not apply to this case, but it violates what CSD actually stands for. Now, I can understand a stretch of the CSD to cover this article's justification for deletion, but there is cleraly evidence of orgnaization, prose, and potential for prose. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, it seems the true matter is determining whether this navigation list serves enough purpose on Wikipedia in terms of organization and cruft-protection. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't mean it shouldn't apply to lists of links with no content, that's what it's for. I meant it shouldn't apply to Lists (capital L, or something like that), as in "List of...", because those are generally considered to be their own designation (like going to Featured Lists instead of Featured Articles). A "List of" something, with organization and whatnot does not fall under A3, and that is what I was trying to say, though above user said it better than me. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Will likely prevent fancruft articles. The Wookieepedian 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if only to prevent future fancruft articles. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Jedi6  -(need help?)  02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Some of the random links I checked out went to other lists, so categorizing wouldn't work. BryanG(talk) 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category serves this purpose. -- GWO
 * Keep. Category does not serve this purpose, as there are red links in the list. Content itself is no different than List of Chevrolet vehicles, which I don't see anyone nominating for deletion. If a topic being fictional was grounds for deletion, I'd be happy to get rid of lots of things, but it's not. Kafziel 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories and lists are not the same, and as mentioned above, a category does not include listings without (and listings which don't need) their own articles, whereas a list does so with no problem. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kafziel. --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Contains no content on the entries so is just a collection of internal links. Should be replaced by a categoory.  Eluchil404 22:56, 6 July 2006 (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.