Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of space pirates


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

List of space pirates

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List which is in violation of WP:NOTDIR because it's just a cross-categorization of fictional characters who are pirates and fictional characters who spend their time in space. I can't see Space Piracy being an encyclopaedic topic, and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. Claritas § 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Claritas. Also, it's mostly original research. Reyk  YO!  23:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Pirates in space is hardly an obscure grouping, it's perfectly serviceable as a navigational list without being based on an existing article. One of my regular tricks with lists like these is to pop over to World of Spectrum, a database of games etc. for the crusty but popular British computer, and see if any results pop up. Cosmic Pirate and Kosmik Pirate did. There are several Tenchi Muyo characters classed as space pirates who have their own articles, the extremely notable Metroid series has space pirate baddies (don't take my word for it) and umpteen more besides. I don't see how such a basic concept could possibly fall into OR territory, and I don't accept that this is a trivial intersection. At worst it could be merged with List of fictional pirates (which I'd still oppose). All it needs is some tables and for character articles to split away from works which strongly feature space pirates. Someoneanother 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Something seems wrong with this AFD, it's not listed on the AFD pages (checked 7th, 8th and 9th), there was a previous AFD (it's on the list talkpage) and clicking on that links to here. Someoneanother 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous AFD page must have been deleted or moved to another location. I'll add it to the log now if it's missing - must have been Twinkle misfunctioning. The sources you've pulled up aren't reliable - I'd really like coverage in reliable sources to show that Space Piracy is a notable concept. Claritas § 09:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is unlikely that sources are going to conspire to enable an article on this trope, but it is a common one that has been around for donkeys, is still in regular use and is used by both the East and West. I'm not sure why you think Computer and Video Games is an unreliable source (Future plc), World of Spectrum is not a source itself but it carries scans of magazines which are (look further down the listings). Someoneanother 10:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider magazines to be reliable sources for indicating notability, because the quality of their reporting is extremely variable. This may well be a minority opinion, as there's nothing in WP:RS about citing magazines. Claritas § 13:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept that as your opinion but can't support it, magazines have been and continue to be invaluable sources for popular culture and entertainment subjects. If you have a look at this you'll notice an entire section about space pirates and several examples. It also dates the trope all the way back to the 1930s. Someoneanother 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR. Random, trivial intersection of arbitrary criteria, no notability of a "space pirate". Tarc (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, every list is a directory, that is why we add them to Wikipedia, it organizes what is already in Wikipedia. That is what lists are for. WP:NOTDIR only warns against making lists of red link items. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly original research, and even if it wasn't, there still is no claim to notableness of the topic "space pirate" anyhow. Delete. Melanesian obsession (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock-puppet: 00:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. Useful list with links. Tomas Jennings (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Tomas Jennings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep while somewhat silly, is a reasonable list and fits in with all the other poorly sourced lists that we have here at Wikipedia. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sit this one out. Not because I think Claritas' arguments regarding NOTDIR regarding fictional lists have an iota of merit--they do not--but because I think the inclusion criteria are particularly muddy. "Pirate" is a loaded term, much like "terrorist".  Space piracy is an absolutely notable concept, but our efforts might be better spent actually making an article on the evolution of the concept than trying to salvage a list with unclear inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Space pirates are a well-established trope. Valid structured list per WP:LISTPURP, serves as navigational aid, and also includes short overview information over each article. walk victor falktalk 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'd rather see us write an article on space piracy or the space pirate trope in literature rather than just have a list, I don't see anything wrong with this one.  While I am generally sympathetic to the idea that lists of this type are trivial intersections, where there is a common and recognized theme or trope they can be appropriate.  As for definition, space pirates are almost always called space pirates in the source material or at least pirates.  There's no need to add to the list based on "I know it when I see it" it should be based on explicit authorial or critical labeling.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2010 (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.