Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vehicles (4th 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

List of fictional vehicles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's last 2 deletion attempts ended in no consensus, with most of the Keep arguments arguing that the article can be "saved" using sources. However, nobody has stepped up to the plate in the last 7 years and the article is just as unreferenced as it was before. It's obvious now that it is WP:LISTCRUFT and is better served as a self maintaining category, e.g. Category:Fictional vehicles. As it is now, membership on the list is totally arbitrary and completely random, stating such things as any time a vehicle appears in a movie.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this appears to be a valid list article. Membership should be completely clear: every Wikipedia page on a fictional vehicle is included on the page. Things like "A hovercraft - used by the girls in Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem" should be removed. Power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because it only has links to other articles doesn't make it "valid". Per WP:LISTCRUFT - "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a standard WP:LISTOFLISTS article, which are accepted throughout Wikipedia, as well as being useful reference articles to keep information handy and in one place. Any cleanup required can be done by editing; AfD is not cleanup. WP:LIST articles always exist in addition to and along with Categories; one never precludes the other and both are encouraged. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this essentially not a keep argument, but an argument to move the article to Lists of fictional vehicles? Because as it stands, it's not a list of lists, it's a list of items. That does bring up a point that this article is probably over-extensive, per WP:OLIST, and may be better off just holding other lists of fictional vehicles. I wouldn't be opposed to making it solely a list of lists.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My !vote is a Keep !vote. This is an AfD, not a debate about the article title. If you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that you could only vote keep and not additionally add an argument to change the title and scope of the article. I've seen it done plenty of times in other AFDs before, as a condition of the keep.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, if you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem being that if I proposed a title change, that failed, and the article remained, I'd have to open a new AfD all over again as it's Listcruft in its current state. I'd rather garner a consensus for something in the context of "this shouldn't exist if it's left in its current state".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My !vote is a Keep !vote. If you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep doesn't seem much point to this. Artw (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Spurious votes don't help your case, this does not meet any criteria for speedy keeps unless you are suggesting that previous "no consensus" votes are enough to shut down any AfD in the future.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There just isn't any kind of decent deletion rationale here that explains why deleting the article makes Wikipedia a better place. Artw (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HARMLESS, not deleting articles of questionable value, set a precedent for pretty much anything to be created, as people will get the idea that it will be kept by editors who just "like it". Ultimately I don't think this article is necessary - there are several more granular lists about various types of vehicles, but not enough to make a list of lists. It's overly broad and will likely overlap greatly with the other lists.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss this subject as a group. The appropriate Category:Fictional vehicles already exists and handles the readers' navigational needs quite well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list needs a little re-organisation so as to separate classes of vehicle (e.g. Hoverboards) from specific vehicles (e.g. Hogwarts Express), but that's trivial and not a reason for deletion. The notability criteria just need to be explicitly stated - a blue link to an article specifically discussing that (class of) vehicle. AfD is not cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Fictional vehicles. Also a functional information page and navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP, with 1,292 page views in the last thirty days. North America1000 07:52, 22 September 2017 (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.