Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional devices in Futurama


 * 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 d e lete with no prejudice against merging. east. 718 at 12:10, November 24, 2007

List of fictional devices in Futurama

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is just an in-universe list of fake technology taken from the various plot sections of episodes of the Television show Futurama. It has no notability of its own, and therefore no references or encyclopedic worth is forthcoming. Without that, it is just pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If anything in there is notable outside the Futurama universe, it should be mentioned in an appropriate non-Futurama-related article. Fancruft. --Blanchardb (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as in-universe fancruft. No notability of its own. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete We have this difficulty often. Futurama is notable.  Of course it needs an article.  And to make this article great, some sub articles make sense.  But notability does not flow down hill forever.  These particular items have no notability of their own.  WP:FICT is helpful here.  But the best measure is do these items have multiple independent reliable sources?  They do not.Obina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A few other pages in Template:Futurama are similar.Obina (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or Merge It is an interesting list, packed with facts, but its mostly listcruft/fancruft. The grist of the article should be put in the parent article as single line entries, not waste an entire page. scope_creep (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad news, everyone! Delete. shoy  (words words) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Interesting article, saving it to my computer, sorry to see that this one got nominated, but I agree that it isn't really encyclopedic. However, this information will continue to be preserved in various forms between now and 3007 Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The items vary in quality, but the fing-longer, for example, seems to make the grade. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is just one of three typical types of fictional subject lists: Characters, objects, and locations. There are many, many more examples of such lists around. I think that such lists can be informative, and are merely separate page lists per Summary style. - jc37 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as well-organized/well-presented list of notable aspect of cartoon, video game, etc. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. An organized list isn't a justified keep reason, it leans towards "I like it" and nothing else. Anything can be organized, that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Good organization is not itself enough to justify a list, but it is certainly one of the factors. (Correspondingly, people rightly say lack of organization is a factor in favor of deletion). And I think most admins know enough to use their own judgment about what is the policy-based consensus without hints specifically addressed in their direction.DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft, non-notable, no secondary sources cited (or probably even available). • 97198  talk  09:31, 21 November 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.