Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planets 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, on strength of arguments. Article without any source, purely in-universe, is a combination of plot summary and trivia. No good, policy based arguments to keep the article have been given. Fram (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of planets in Futurama

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep notable show, consistent with treatment of Star Wars cruft etc. JJL (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If its cruft, as you say, why would we want to keep it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - same reasons given in the other AfDs for these sub-articles. They probably should have been proposed together. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should I do we do that? As I said about notability, every article should stand on its own, for keeping or deletion. Being a subarticle doesn't qualify an article to be unnotable or a plot repetition like this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the arguments for and against deletion are the same. All the verbiage spent in those AfDs apply here too.  I'd rather not have the same discussion five times. Torc2 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't care if it's cruft - people are too quick to delete things on Wikipedia. We have an opportunity here to create the most comprehensive database of information ("trivial" or otherwise) in history.  If people don't want to read the article, they don't have to - why would we want to deprive interested parties of this information?  It's not like Wikipedia has limited space for articles. Danflave (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Read up on policies instead of assuming Wikipedia must be the place for anything people create. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nope, it's a kakistocracy. 137.22.226.140 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a bureaucracy, despite them having a rule in place that basically says, "..well, NUH UH." 216.37.86.10 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your desire to speak out, but your argument completely ignores a Wikipedia POLICY: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I should add that people "don't have to read the article", but if we let every single article stay, they might not be able to read it! It would be IMPOSSIBLE to organize articles under your ideal. --Teggles 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, WP:IAR is policy. Let's assume he's citing that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - while the information may be "duplicative," I believe aggregation of this information in one page creates significant value. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The information here may exist elsewhere, but this format makes it easy to find in one place, and I think that has a great value to interested parties 24.11.202.83 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is on a sliding scale here. I would suggest keeping the major planets, severely trimming the information on the minor worlds visited, and entirely deleting those only referenced in the show unless they are also referenced in independent sources. 70.112.121.70 (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no need to delete this, perhaps trim the article a bit to only list the more commonly referenced planets (no need to keep one that was referenced just once). Ariel. (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A definite keep. Very informative and no different then specifics for any marvel comic
 * Keep - This is one is a great, informative article. 92.80.84.111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to a Futurama wikia, otherwise delete. There is not a single assertion of real-world notability (as necessary per WP:FICT), and I doubt that real-world coverage about these planets even exists. – sgeureka t•c 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a lot of effort went into it and it contains accurate, useful information. Stop rubbishing others' work because it's "unimportant". --90.197.75.110 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could put a lot of effort into an article about a bit of dirt on the signpost down the street, and it could be completely accurate. Not a reason to keep. In addition, the usefulness of an article is completely subjective and so not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is no less important than any article on wikipedia about Klingons. Jlam4911 13:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There is much discussion of "Klingons" in reliable sources such as magazines and newspapers, and "Klingons" have made appearances in other media (e.g. The Simpsons). Could the same be said about the planets of Futurama? If this specific area of Klingons is in fact not mentioned in reliable sources, it should be deleted itself. WP:WAX would be a very good read for you. --Teggles 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The article is good and informative. eyelessfade 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, an article about Bill Clinton's left testicle could be "good and informative", that doesn't mean it should be kept.


 * Keep - Frankly, whether this particular article abides exactly by the rules or not, Wikipedia has many, many similar pages, suggesting either a near-complete lack of enforcement, or that this article does not actually fall afoul of those rules. Why delete this one? Peter Crabtree 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That simply means that those articles should be deleted too. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article appears to have a following and a desire in the community to keep and improve. There is no reason to delete. rmosler 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it stands. Rescue?  Currently, it has just about no sources, but I'm sure it's notable as a topic.  There has to be stuff out there, see the almost 2 million Ghits. Bearian 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of which none are reliable sources. Actually, that's a guess. If you can find a reliable source in there, I'll retract my statement and this article WILL be kept. Otherwise, it will be deleted. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...you do realize that you don't have the ability to arbitrarily decide the fate of this AfD, correct? If consensus stands that the article should be kept, it is kept, regardless of how you feel. Sorry if that's a little blunt, but your excessively combative attitude displayed thus far is a tad bit worrisome. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Another bad faith deletionist nomination that damages the integrity of this site. It's embarrassing. All of these keep votes will be discredited by 'vets' soon enough. 216.37.86.10 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This deletion is not bad faith because it focuses on the genuine violation of policies and guidelines. These keep votes will be (or are) descredited because they're invalid arguments. In addition, "vets" (i.e., people who have been editing for longer and understand Wikipedia's guideline and policies) do not have any higher role than other editors. The only difference is that these arguments are poor. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This has its place on Wikipedia. Remember, wiki is not paper. MikeCapone 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As usual, the keep voters resort to both ignoring policy and personal attacks instead of actually fixing a very deficient article. The best that can be shown is a random google search with wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone has an actual policy argument or is going to attempt to actually improve the article, there is little hope for keeping. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Fun and interesting article about a show with a large following. Please do not delete. benatkin 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The enjoyability and interest of an article is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. Futurama has a large following, not its planets. If there is a large following of Futurama's planets, I might reconsider my argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Clearly a well-done and comprehensive article. There are a lot of similar articles on TV series that never get deleted. Vincent 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could create a comprehensive and well-done article article on my foot, that doesn't mean an article on my foot should be kept. Consensus for another television show with a different level of popularity is irrelevant to this discussion. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Knowitall 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- No notability, complete fan cruft. Why is everyone voting keep? It makes no sense.
 * Keep -- This is a valuable reference of our pop culture society.
 * Comment WP:JNN WP:UGH 216.37.86.10 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am using notability to ask for verification through reliable out of universe sourcing, of which none has been demonstrated yet. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, delete & transwiki per sgeureka, then. Knowitall 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Huge Keep -- Come on, Consistency demands this be kept. I have previously nominated the articles for single characters from a Half-Life sequel to be deleted, and was repeatedly told that it was insane to delete such articles, which remain and have remained for years.
 * That is a completely different situation. It is for a video game, not a movie. It is for characters, not a list of planets. It is for a topic with a differing amount of reliable sources. There are too many differing factors. Your argument would only be valid if those articles were in the EXACT SAME circumstances as this. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

-Keep- It's interesting and informative. It could be attached to the Futurama wiki, but deleting would be senseless.
 * An article's interest to someone is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Although this article needs better sources, it is instructive and interesting. Definite keep.
 * An article's interest to someone is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, all information is verifiable via the show and related books. Notability of some individual items may be in question, but this is an article on all of them. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, lacking citations isn't a cause for immediate deletion. . leondz
 * You're correct, but the nonexistence of reliable sources (NOT FUTURAMA ITSELF) is a cause for deletion - not immediately, but when this discussion is over. If reliable sources are not displayed, this discussion should only result in deletion. --Teggles 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please keep in mind that adding the "this is not a majority vote" boilerplate and |explaining in the edit summary that this is due to |reddit user involvement does not allow you to immediately discredit all keep votes with valid arguments. This is extremely distasteful and rude, and exposes just how much outside involvement is easily dismissed by 'veteran editors'. This tactic has been done on other AfD discussions in the past, and as a result has discredited ALL votes not in favor of the nomination, REGARDLESS of supporting evidence. An article regarding the moon landing was butchered from several pages of hard work down to a pathetic 2 sentence footnote. Deceitful actions like this only further damage the integrity and validity of Wikipedia, and discourage any new users from contributing. Then again, that's exactly what many of this site's vets are attempting to push into effect. 75.65.91.142 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Wow! It appears to be that every single keep vote is invalid. No one accurately specified any policy or guideline in support of their argument. Would you like some policies and guidelines for delete? Here's a teaser:
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: This is a collection of planets of which the majority have only been mentioned. How many have been visited in more than one episode? My best guess is 5. That is indidscriminate.
 * A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.: Go on people. It is your job to give reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss Futurama's planets - that means no fansites, and not Futurama itself. Good luck! --Teggles 08:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not dismiss an entire discussion out of hand due to the comments of a few. View my comment above. &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's too busy discrediting all non-veterans to acknowledge your valid argument. 75.65.91.142 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Siroxo, it's not the comments of a few. As you may have noticed, I replied to a lot of the comments. All of them ignore or misunderstand policy and guidelines, including yours. And Mr. I-hate-Veterans, that is exactly why I am discrediting others' arguments. Siroxo has not made a valid argument. I quote him: "Notability of some individual items may be in question, but this is an article on all of them." Nobility is on a topic, and the topic of Futurama planets has not shown to be notable, which means the article should be deleted. Have a read of WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means THE TOPIC OF PLANETS IN FUTURAMA MUST HAVE SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE NOT FUTURAMA. --Teggles 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit deliberately putting words in my mouth and biting anyone and everyone that isn't worthy to contribute to this site. Every redditor has teethmarks on their leg. 75.65.91.142 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh shut up, every edit you make to this site involves you accusing people of deleting articles with no consideration for their content. You make up a group called the "vets" who apparently dismiss arguments from "non-vets" just because of their status. The "vets" are simply following policy and guidelines, and the "non-vets" aren't. In fact, that's the only method of which you are separating the groups - this one is following policy, he's a vet! I won't put up with people like you, or people who can't think of an argument that doesn't effectively mean "It should be kept because I like it, and it's not harming anyone!" --Teggles 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your 'group' affiliation is based on your bad attitude and condescending tone. 75.65.91.142 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a little illogical. I have a bad attitude and I'm condescending, so I must be part of a (nonexistent) group? Perhaps I'm just angered by dealing with people like you all of the time? Here, I'll be nice. Read the articles on this page: List of policies. They're actually the centerpoint of deletion discussion, even though all of the "keep" votes would imply otherwise. --Teggles 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone would do well to re-read WP:CIVIL the next chance they get. Let's all love each other and whatnot. -FrankTobia 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut up everyone and be civil! - Now that I have your attention, the AFD nomination made it clear that the notability is in question, not anyones motives or behavior. And those hoping to keep this article MUST establish notability through references, or don't bother posting endless keep votes. Either follow the guidelines or don't bother joining in; Wikipedia has guidelines and its time they were respected. Judgesurreal777 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep if cleaned Inclusionists will say that WP is not a paper encyclopedia so everything should be included. Deletionists want to keep the reputation of WP intact by not making this a collection of meaningless trivia.  WP has policies that support BOTH ideologies.  Sort of makes it difficult to make an objective decision, doesn't it?  I hate to cite other articles as examples for why this article should be kept (because its really not a good idea anyway and is argued against by WP), but I just see what other meaningless, similar lists having been allowed to exist (List_of_Star_Trek_planets) and I have to say that if this list could be kept if properly sourced and cleaned up a bit. I have no knowledge on Futurama and no time to devote to an article this large, but others should hopefully be able to fix it.  I personally think that lists are in and of themselves unencyclopedic (my opinion...but I've never opened a paper encyclopedia and seen a list of ANYTHING), but what's been previously decided as being acceptable in WP is pretty much set in stone, so I must press for this list to be kept and cleaned up. will381796 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems too trivial to be encyclopedic. And there's no sources to speak of. Redrocketboy 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the policy that should apply to this article is WP:NNC. This is essentially information that could be merged into the main Futurama article, but would have to then be separated out again due to WP:SIZE problems.  Consensus is clearly to keep these articles. Torc2 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has no notability, why would it be merged anywhere? Judgesurreal777 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Futurama has no notability? This is just an extension of that article. Torc2 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either back up your claims or quit mass-tagging articles for deletion with the bare minimum effort on your part. This should fall under WP:NNC, along with other articles you're trying to destroy, and to respond to every claim with a simple, 'No, it's not notable,' just doesn't cut it. If you can't properly submit articles for deletion, please let someone else do it. 75.65.91.142 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks, they are pointless. The AFD asks that those who would keep the article must justify the articles verifiability through references, or don't say "keep". That's the only issue, if you wish to actually participate in saving the article, insulting me will get you no where. Judgesurreal777 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you threatening me on my page. I hope you haven't threatened other users that have dared to go against this batch of weak nominations.75.65.91.142 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have simply pointed out to you that incivility will not be tolerated, whatever you think of my actions regarding deletion or anything else. If you would open your eyes, by the way, you would see that at minimum 90% of the articles I have nominated have been deleted, so don't accuse me of going against policy either. Judgesurreal777 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Due to the complete lack of secondary sources or real world information as required by WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:5P. Guest9999 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Please avoid WP:JUSTAPOLICY 75.65.91.142 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe WP:JUSTAPOLICY applies as I gave a reason why the article currently goes against the polcies mentioned. Guest9999 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * No, you're just name-dropping. WP:5P is an especially large stretch on this one. Torc2 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case I would like to further elaborate on why I think the article conflicts with the various guidelines and policies I mentioned above:

WP:NN states:
 * "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article"
 * "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Conflict with article: There are no secondary sources at all are given in the article. There is therefore absolutely no evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources.

WP:FICT states:
 * "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources."
 * "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability"

Conflict with article: There is no real world information within the article.

WP:NOT states:
 * "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"

Conflict with article: Most of the reasons for keeping the artcile seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or WP:EFFORT, the topic does not appear to be notable and no real reson why the rules should be ignored for this topic has been given.

WP:NOT states:
 * "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context... not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"

Conflict with article: There is no real-world context or content in the article, the article is essentially just an extended section of plot summary.

WP:V states:
 * "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Conflict with article: No reliable third party sources have been found for the topic or the article.

WP:NPOV states:
 * "A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view"

Conflict with article: There is not a balanced selection of sources - just one the primary source material.

WP:OR states:
 * "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"

Conflict with article: The article presents the primary source material from the television episodes as fact - it qualify them with discriptos. Without specialist knowledge of the tv show the information within the article is compeletly unverefiable.

WP:WAF states:
 * "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference."
 * "Another rule of thumb is that if the topic is notable, secondary information should be available and possibly already in the article."

Conflict with article: There is no real world information for the article to be based around and no secondray sources seem to exist.

WP:RS states:
 * "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

Conflict with article: None of the material within the article is supported by cited sources.

WP:5P states:
 * "All of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define Wikipedia's character"
 * "Wikipedia is free content"

Conflict with article: If the article and content of the article go against so many (everything apart from WP:IAR) of the core polcies and guidelines then they will likely go against the document summarising said polcies and guidelines. There is a question over whethere a description of a fictional work without any real world content, evaluation or anaysis qualifies as free content. Guest9999 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * This is a sub-article of Futurama. Every single one of those is satisfied once you recognize that these are one article broken into several pieces due to size considerations.  The only appropriate guidelines are WP:NNC and the final paragraph of WP:NOTINHERITED. Torc2 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Those are the only appropriate guidelines? I'm very interested to know why Notability (fiction) doesn't apply here.  Pagra shtak  05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NNC?, this proposal is not to delete the content of the article it is to delete the article itself - no sources are present or have been provided that show significant coverage the planets of Futurama. So called sub articles that rely entirely upon another article are not recognised by the core policies and guidelines of Wikiepdia.
 * This article is for all intents and purposes part of the Futurama article. Torc2 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:FICT - a very appropriate guideline - "sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability" - relevent part put in bold by me. There is no way to justify this article as it is by any policy bar WP:IAR, otherwise no sources = no article, period. Guest9999 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * The real-world information and notability is found in the main article: Futurama. The guideline WP:FICT conflicts with other guidelines (notably WP:NOTINHERITED - don't know why you choose to ignore that) on whether this is sufficient, but most people understand that a sub-article can't possibly be expected to be judged in utter isolation.  In any case, WP:IAR in itself is more than sufficient here, since the vast, vast majority of users recognize that keeping this is more beneficial to Wikipedia than deleting it.  Absolute strict interpretation of these guidelines would result in every single "List of" article being deleted. Torc2 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay not a guideline, it's from a good essay but actual guidelines and policies that directly relate to the subject (WP:FICT, WP:NN, etc) have to take precedent. Guest9999 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Comment: this is a great article; it's simply wrong to delete it. I'm not citing any wikipedia guidelines; rather, I'm citing simple human concerns and empathy: why would you erase something that a bunch of other people worked hard on, and that a bunch of people will enjoy reading?  If the wikipedia policies say to delete this, then the wikipedia policies are wrong and should be ignored.

However, it would not be as wrong to move the article somewhere else (wikia or whatever) and leave here a pointer to the new location ("This content has been moved to blah blah blah") instead of just a blank page. The pointer is key -- if the article is just deleted, all incoming links are broken and potential readers are left with no way to find the content they were directed to. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, this article will not be able to meet the standards of notability, verifyability and sourcing that are required by an encyclopaedia. These inclusion crietria have beeen decided by consensus, I agree that the article would be great somewhere else such as a Futurama/Groening/Animation wiki or wikia. Guest9999 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep per ignore all rules and the clear consensus that this article should be here. We really need to revisit our guidelines and policies when they are being used to decimate coverage of popular fictional works, simply because we can't go to Google and find academic studies or newspapers covering the significant details of these works. Plenty of sources exist for articles like these, but because we've made our definition of "reliable sources" so strict, we deem any these "fansites" as being "unreliable" and say we can't accept them as sources. Malarkey. Many of these "fansites" are as "peer-reviewed" as any academic work on more "serious" subjects, especially ones concerning works that are extremely popular among Internet users. They are often as reliable as (if not more so than) any newspaper or published book, such that they are often cited by such publications when they need detailed information on fictional works. Having a list of planets is akin to having a list of characters. It is a reasonable compromise between having a detailed article about each fictional planet collecting "fancruft" and having no information at all, or information that is so scattered among different episode articles, that it is difficult for interested people to find. Such efforts to collect information in this way ought to be applauded, not deleted. DHowell 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there have been any efforts, they have come to naught, and there has been no satifsctory assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is permissable to take information and create a seperate page to house it so it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of space in the main article. That is what was done here. Thus it is fine as is. Oh and for #9999, Primary sources are acceptable when writing about fictional works. This list is derived from primary sources and thus meets the requirements for have reliable sources. Verifiability is in the same vein, it's a TV show, it's not hard to verify what happened in an episode.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability requires that, for fiction, secondary sources are established so that it isn't just plot regurgitation, as this article is. Now a huge discussion has occurred, and for all the huff and bluster, there has been no establishment of notability through reliable sources, only various keep votes that have nothing to do with either policy or the nominating reasons. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - primary sources are acceptable for use within an article when writing about almost anything as long as they are used appropriately. However they are not acceptable for establishing notability - this is made clear in both the primary notability criteria which states that secondary sources establish notability and the specific criteria for fiction which confirms the need for real world information. There is no evidence that the topic of this article has been the subject of any (let alone signicant) coverage by secondary sources which could have provided the required real world information. Guest9999 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Futurama itself (the concept) is plenty notable, and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to apply the topic's notability to various aspects of it; in this case, while individual articles on each of these planets would most certainly warrant deletion, I feel that a consolidated list is acceptable middle ground. Yes, it would do well to see some pruning (I found a reference to a non-existent episode), but I don't believe deletion is in order. Deletion is not the only response to an article you find wanting. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sizable discussion above. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The major elements of a major work like this are notable, and this is much better than an attempt to do articles on each of them. The sources are the ones appropriate for the subject. DGG (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * THERE IS NOT EVEN AN REFERENCE SECTION! It is appropriate for this article to have NONE? Please, explain this to me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's appropriate, as the references are built into the article itself. Just because there isn't a References heading doesn't mean everything is unsourced. For example, List of planets in Futurama says "In the episode 'The Day the Earth Stood Stupid', Nibbler states the Nibblonian race was already seventeen years old at the time of the Big Bang." What's the source? "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid". It doesn't need a ref tag to be referenced. While I suppose it would be nice if there were a reference that stated when exactly in the episode it happens, it's hardly a reason to delete the article. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are no references built into the article, and there has been no assertion of notability through reliable sources, which is what the article needs. You are in desperate need of reading wikipedia policies on notability with regard to fiction, here it is WP:FICTION. Once you understand this policy, you will realize the arguments you are making are flatly wrong and misunderstanding of the issues being discussed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a bit of friendly advice: if you would be just less combative in your responses, you might have a better chance of convincing people that you're right. Telling people that they flat-out don't know policy isn't really the best way to win friends and influence people, so to speak.
 * This is not group therapy or a job interview, its just the truth, you have no grasp of what we are talking about and everything you say reflects that. Should I pander to you, and say "oh that's find, ignore policy, whatever you feel is right". What would that accomplish? If I did that, a dozen other people would say the same things I am saying, which is read the policies, and you will get on the same page with those who understand the policy as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

← Judgesurreal777, Evula is right; you are coming across as hostile by telling others they don't know policy. Evula is a respected admin and I would expect him to know policies such as this. As for the article, the references built into the article ("in episode X character Y says this") are fine for factual accuracy and even verifiability. But the accuracy of the list is not in question, it's the notability. The article needs external sources to indicate why it is notable. Once notability has been established the article can use 1st party sources to prove it's content, but it needs to show notability first. As of now there are no references other than the episodes so there is no assertion of notability. As for the argument that notability is inherited, that is very weak. If the planets were crucial to the overarching plot of Futurama (not just a single episode) then it would be applicable, however everything from Minor planets down is unimportant. I think the list should be trimmed to only the major planets that appear more than once, the rest seems to just be cruft ("Large green bushes that grow in a slightly triangular pattern. They grow alone and in clumps and grow to about 6 ft." - Matt Groening probably just thought it looked more interesting than regular grass, why include that in an encyclopedia?). James086 Talk &#124; Email 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So I should pretend he does, when he clearly does not, when he misunderstands every argument I make. You see, it doesn't matter who he is, or how great a guy/girl he is, the point is he is making arguments with no regard to policy. Period, end of story. If the truth is mean, so be it, text based discussions rarely correctly convey the emotions involved. If you want to know, I feel great passion for conveying what I am saying, and no meanness is intended. But do you expect me to be quiet when and ADMIN says there are references and there are NONE? It is very telling that for all this defense of this article, not one reference has been produced for notability, and I think it doubtful that one will show up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No but you should avoid tellings someone that "you have no grasp of what we are talking about" as I'm sure, based on what I've seen of Evula, that he knows what we are talking about. I don't expect you to be quiet, I just expect you to be civil. You may rebutt the arguments made by Evula or anyone else, but concentrate on their argument rather than them. Say "policy does not support your argument" rather than "you do no know policy" or something like that and you will have far more sucessful interactions with people. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then he should argue the that article has demonstrated no notability, or that there are references somewhere that would make this notable. To claim it has references currently when there is not even a section is based on no policy I have ever heard of, and I do not even know how to respond, its like we are talking past each other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree with EVula. The Notability rules are extremely tricky to actually implement in regards to fictional works. It's very easy to find references to Futurama and stuff within it. However, the requirements for notability guarantee that 999 out of 1,000 are useless since they A: are first party, or B: are nonauthoritative. Wikipedia rules do not require subpages to be independantly notable. As is the article could be considered a sub page of the main futurama article.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICT is not not as strict as WP:N for third-party material, but it makes clear the need of "reliable secondary sources [that] cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise", and allows splitting off material into new pages when "encyclopedic treatment" is apparent. But as this article basically fails WP:NOT (i.e. non-encyclopedic treatment) and doesn't establish notability per WP:FICT (and probably never will), it shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, there is no attempt to establish notability. Ignore all rules to me must be justified very strongly and it certainly is not here. The huge amount of votes here, in contrast to most AFDs, is suspect and makes me no more likely to want to keep the article. The arguments made in favor of delete are numerous, strong, and based on WP policy which was created by consensus. The arguments against, to me, are throughly unconvincing and have been rebutted effectively in every case. I realize that some people may be unhappy about their work being deleted (hence the impassioned pleas) but that's not enough. Epthorn (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with those who have pointed out that the arguments for keeping bear little relation to the relevant policies and guidelines. It needs to demonstrate notability, sub-article or not, and it doesn't. Could this ever be anything more than a plot summary anyway?  Mi re ma re  19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no reliable secondary sources dealing with this specific topic (which is cruft, BTW). SharkD (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree that none of the keep votes here appear to be rooted in any relevant policy. The article is entirely in-universe and has no secondary sources. It does not satisfy Notability (fiction).  Pagra shtak  02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (after moving info to appropriate wikia) This is non-notable material and lacks sources. Even considering the argument that this page inherits the notability from the main Futurama page, the sub-article should only be a separate article if that information would normally be discussed in the main page but is otherwise split for MOS/summary style purposes.  The approach that this article takes is not written in that format - it is set out to simply be a list of fictional places that cannot be worked into the current Futurama article - its a list for list's sake.  --M ASEM  03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_planets:_A-B 90 percent of the arguments listed here in favor of deletion would apply here too, but nobody would dream of deleting this. The references go straight to episodes.24.11.202.83 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the humor of Futurama is that the planets are not notable. SharkD (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think Star Trek suffers from a lack of notability. Similar information can be found in published works. See here, here and especially here. SharkD (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also in order to prove notability, not accuracy, sources external to the episodes are required. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the article. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. You're comparing this article to one that has multiple published works dedicated to the subject? Also, how is WP:OTHERSTUFF relevant? SharkD (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant for 24.11.202.83 to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF as s/he was the one who was saying that because the list of Star-trek planets is there it justifies a list of Futurama planets. I agree that the article should be deleted; there are no external sources to prove notability. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:40, 7 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.