Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places 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 delete. Neil  ☎  10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Futurama places

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree totally with nom. NN, Cruft and just duplicated from the episode articles. Spawn Man (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per the above. CRUFT, already mentioned in various articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as an arbitrary & indiscriminate collection of 87 in-universe factoids, each one without any encyclopedic treatment. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its an excellent summary from multiple episode articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.   — Hiding T 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, serves no out-of-universe purpose; simply fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate list, about items of questionable import, even for this Futurama fan.-- danntm T C 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to say it, but delete. Perhaps an article under this title could exist, but this isn't it. Needs to focus on highly notable places to the plot of the series, rather than merely every place. - Chardish (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fancrufty listcruft. RMHED (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:FICT, this is clearly a sub-article whose contents would make the main Futurama article too long and stylistically awkward. It should be judged as piece of the main article, not separately, meaning primary sources are sufficient. Torc2 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All articles are evaluated on their own, not as a part of any other article, so this one has to establish its own notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, individual topics just have to satisfy WP:N on their own, but the article does not have to be judged absolutely independently of the main article. WP:FICT: "In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article."  Torc2 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICT also says this; "Avoid creating new articles on fictional topics that lack substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information". This article has not done this and needs to to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a distinction between "creating" an article and spinning it off from a parent article. The sources would be the episodes themselves; granted these are primary sources and not secondary sources, but as the article should be considered a sub-article of Futurama, the sources there should be sufficient to establish notability.  "Preferably" doesn't imply an absolute requirement, and a guideline such as WP:FICT must be somewhat flexible if it hopes to apply to every possible topic. Torc2 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the part where it says that the article must prove its notability through substantial rewl world information, and this has demonstrated done. It must do that in order to not be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying the notability is partially inherited from the main Futurama article and doesn't need to be reestablished here as completely as a stand-alone article would. This is essentially part of the Futurama article that has been broken off (as opposed than a stand-alone article created from scratch) and is bound by WP:NNC more than WP:FICT; it only needs to meet WP:V, and does so using primary sources. Torc2 (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It cannot establish verifiability only through primary sources, it needs to establish its significence through real world content, it is not ok for articles to remain permanently a B class in-universe unreferenced article. And by the way, when did the fiction guidelines become unimportant or ignorable? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The real world content of the main article is in part inherited by the sub-article. The Fiction guideline isn't unimportant or ignorable, just subservient to WP:IAR.  Insisting that an article must stand completely isolated on its own is a damaging ideology for Wiki; editors need to recognize that size constraints are the only reason an article like this exists separately of its main topic, so to ignore the notability of the main article while judging the sub-article isn't healthy for Wikipedia.  It's the same reason why an album automatically becomes notable if it's from a notable band, even though the album article, judged in complete isolation, wouldn't be notable.  Futurama more than adequately meets any notability guideline you want to throw at it; some users researching the the topic absolutely will be interested in a list of places in Futurama; trying to argue about the notability of the article in isolation just doesn't work. Torc2 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a valuable resource that lists areas/places where action occurred yet is not listed under the main episode article mdvbilt 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.200.98 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)  — 75.33.200.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Its useful is not a criteria, what it contributes to Wikipedia is the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is a discriminate list pertaining to a notable show, DVD movie, video game, etc. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You and other "Keepers" need to establish it has notability to stop deletion, as it cannot leech credibility off of the show. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of planets in Futurama. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which, of course, was also just nominated for deletion. Torc2 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A lot of these places just serve as gags in the show, making this (essentially) just a list of jokes. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No real-world notability asserted, likely impossible to establish anyway. – sgeureka t•c 07:59, 6 December 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.