Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional online services


 * 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. BorgQueen 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional online services

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft; no encyclopaedic value. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly encyclopaedic information. Jcuk 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a collection of every non-existent website ever mentioned once in a TV show. Otto4711 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete.com per nom--Docg 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep could be done better, but as a collation of material that is on Wikipedia elsewhere it is not a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a list fan, but do see some use, as this can easily be cross-referenced to many articles... and, as the article already states, there are some that have moved from fiction to reality.  SkierRMH, 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A list restricted only to those sites that have been established might be reasonable, if the sites are themselves somehow notable, c.f. Doctor Who tie-in websites. This list isn't that. This list is any website that any character mentioned in any form of media ever, regardless of whether there is any significance to the site or it's a one-off reference that will never be mentioned again. Otto4711 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable, useful, not indiscriminate and small enough to maintain easily. Made-up WP:NOT criteria notwithstanding. --Canley 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your comments here indicate that you don't have a real understanding of what WP:NOT means. WP:NOT is not limited only to those items specifically mentioned. Indiscriminate collections of information are subject to deletion even if they do not happen to be one of the things specifically mentioned by name in the policy. The named items are those for which consensus has been reached and is not intended to be the only things that are indiscriminate. Otto4711 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have, but I still think it's somewhat misleading to link to WP:NOT with a completely made-up (dare I say, fictional) statement as if your interpretation is clearly backed-up by this policy. I'm sure we both agree that this is true: "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries"! In the absence of applicable policy we'll have to see where the debate takes us... --Canley 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information (which qualifies). People who say it's valuable for research don't understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that has and ever will happen. Read: WP:ILIKEIT. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:34, 20 January 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.