Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional online services (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Eluchil404 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional online services
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was nominated back in January, with an AfD resulting in no consensus. I am re-nominating this article based on the same rationale. We are not a collection of everything that has ever been, and we're certainly not the place to indiscriminantly list every online service that doesn't even exist. Specific policies: WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:N.
 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Should've been deleted last time as Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics nor are they repositories of internal or external links . A list of every time someone mentions a phony website or fake email address, even one that's used by the show or movie for promotional purposes, is not encyclopedic. An article on the specific fiction is free to include fictional websites that are used within the fiction and if the site is notable within the fiction then an article on the specific site is reasonable. An article on the use of the internet for marketing would no doubt benefit from a sourced discussion of the phenomenon. But a list of every fictional website ever? Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, unnecessary, unwarranted. Otto4711 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This time it does seem that few if any of this are central to the plot. But they provide a common element in the works discussed. That is a sufficient association. Week association would be say, everything mentioned in the first ten minutes of a movie, or the like; plot elements, even major background elements, are a specific association. I apologize for not being able to do this is alliterative prose. DGG (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - From WP:FICTION: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.  None of these online services are covered in any third party reliable sources; none of them have any real-world context (or notability).  I fail to see how the importance to the plot has any relevance at all on a project that explicitly is not in the business of summarizing plots.  /Blaxthos 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- nothing but a list, arbitrary and unfinishable.JJJ999 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not arbitrary, it just isn't as complete as it should be.  if it were more complete the association would be unquestioned.  agree with dgg, only i think there is an even stronger line of association that is possible and needs time to develop. --Buridan 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been around for three years. One would think that's been more than enough time for this supposed association to become apparent. Otto4711 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article stays I suggest it gets a much needed reformat. I tried reading it an it's so disorganized that it makes searching for anything specific nearly impossible. i have no idea how to better present the data, but I'll think about it and share my thoughts on the talk page if anything comes to mind. --Torchwood Who? 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is trivia at its worst. Dannycali 20:25, 2 October 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.