Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Invader Zim


 * 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of vehicles in Invader Zim

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod- "poppycock", evidently. Fails WP:FICT as a near-completely in universe treatment. David Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like a minor aspect--no evidence that it's notable or that it's a reasonable split of the main article. JJL (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Invader Zim is the most brilliant thing every shown on Nick, but this is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just in-universe detail with no real world notability established. Waffles! Bill (talk 09:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Listmania and really not significant in terms of fiction or gaming. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOT and WP:FICT, collection of fictional information that lacks real world notability. Possibly transwiki to Zimwiki AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems to be non-notable. There are no sources specified, and it fails WP:FICT. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above comments   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep ...unless it can be clearly defined how this particular list of fictional vehicles is less worthy of an article than the near-identical ones for Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, James Bond, Masters of the Universe, Warhammer, and everything else. Yes, it needs references, but that makes it an article in need of improvement, not deletion. Clayhalliwell (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Argument is that other articles exist and, why should these be kept if this article is not? For Star Wars, Star Trek, (and Dr. Who in the UK) a case can be made that the images of their respective vehicles have transcended culture and are featured in parody and elsewhere. Anecdotally, vehicles from these series are identifiable even to people with only a cursory familiarity with the show. I question what notable third party verifiable sources can be provided for Invader Zim vehicles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted in Other Stuff Exists, this is not always an invalid argument for keeping an article. In this case, Wikipedia has established via the precedent of the massive and unchallenged Star Trek/Star Wars/etc. articles that lists of vehicles in fiction are not sewage.
 * The question thus becomes one strictly of notability. As per the WP:FICT guidelines, otherwise good articles should be given the opportunity to establish their notability, as there is of course no deadline. For this article, the issue comes down to how much of a stickler the admins decide to be about secondary sources. The overwhelming majority of the information in the article can easily be referenced from primary sources (the episodes themselves), but more importantly the parent article has no such notability concerns.
 * Furthermore, since nobody has challenged the article as un-encyclopedic, it's valid to defend it as useful (currently the number one Google hit for "Invader Zim vehicles"). Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can bring out some third party sources that substantially cover vehicles in Invader Zim I'd be happy to say we should keep the article and attempt to clean it up instead of deleting it. I've been editing Zim articles for a long time now and this one has never shown signs of having sources to establish individual notability. Bill (talk 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Fan-appeasing material. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:24, 11 February 2008 (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.