Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raider Fighter (Babylon 5)


 * 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. After 2 relists, significant work, and yet only minor discussion, there's no current consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Raider Fighter (Babylon 5)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No (3rd party) independent reliable sources for this article. Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Merge  this and several similar articles into a new article List of Babylon 5 spacecraft. While Starfuries and White Stars almost certainly have sources, these and most of the rest of the similar ships do not.  Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any notability for such a list or the other 2 ships you are stating.Curb Chain (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because you haven't read the secondary sources I have--more sources exist than are documented in most of the B5 articles, because they date from the "ancient times" before such sourcing was commonplace for fictional element articles. At any rate, there is a general expectation that notable fictional franchises are entitled to list articles of fictional elements that span more than one primary work--e.g., List of Firefly characters.  In science fiction franchises, space vehicles typically have such lists as well.  Babylon 5 articles have not generally been upgraded to such current best practices. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fictional franchises are not exempted from our notability guidelines. Lists of fictional elements have to meet WP:LISTN (the group of elements must be significantly covered in independent sources), and there is no topic, whether it is characters or vehicles, that is automatically notable, or "entitled" to be covered on WP, as you put it. The notability of B5 vehicles remains to be proven, and as Curb Chain, I have serious doubts it exists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. All lists may have an article per WP:N only if the list has been discussed in multiple secondary independent third party source.Curb Chain (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? If I can prove you wrong, will you withdraw the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep After reviewing a few of the available primary sources (my library) and doing a Google Books search, I have added content and references such that there are now 4 independent reliable sources, vs. the one which was present (and to which I do not have access myself) when the article was nominated. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG has not been met. None of those sources discuss the topic in depth and independently.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have all of them? The A-Z book isn't available via Google Books. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Curb Chain, none of the sources provide any significant coverage that goes beyond a "definition of the topic" per WP:WHYN (ie plot summary). GNG is not met. Given how most of them only replace primary sources without any content change, coverage doesn't go beyond reprinted dialogue from the show. One passage added by Jclemens is not even about Raider fighters but a character than has nothing to do with them. If Jclemens intends to convince anyone that these sources contain any significant coverage, we'll wait and see instead of blindly trusting his (as of now) misleading descriptions of sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely free to purchase copies of secondary sources that discuss off-the-air science fiction TV off of Amazon Marketplace, just like I do. I've posted ISBNs for everything.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And your inability to extract GNG-compliant content out of them is not mine. WP:SOURCEACCESS is not the issue here, thanks to GBooks we have easy acces to the 3 sources you added, which allowed me to verify that they don't provide significant, in-depth content on the subject, and thus that GNG is not met, contrary to your claims. I'll wait until we're presented with actual significant coverage to change my recommandation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you start by amending your above "none of the sources" statement, to match your revised statement, since we're apparently agreed that the A-Z source cannot be seen via Google Books. Wouldn't want to have a material inaccuracy in your statement, would you? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can view it in Gbooks. I must be God :) Cheers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary source. Too specific trivia that doesn't fit anywhere. There is no need to mention every little fictional device that ever existed on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per good faith efforts of adding sources by Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources meet the WP:GNG criteria, but the fact of adding them would somehow make the article notable ? Please be serious. Your comment doesn't provide any policy-based reason as to why the article should be kept, so I encourage you to amend it, otherwise it can (and quite frankly should) be ignored by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. And @Jclemens:  That A-Z source discusses Babylon 5 indepth, but nothing has yet in this debate, on the talk page or on the article has been show shown or provided to prove that Raider Fighters in Babylon 5 are notable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... Except for the fact that they're covered non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources, you mean? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and these sources have not been provided as of yet nor on the article.Curb Chain (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? They're added to the article already.  I added two more RS'es, from books from my library, bringing the total to six, four of which I own, one of which was in the article from the outset, and one of which I found via Google Books. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources discuss Babylon 5 and but not the ship indepth.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I continue to be amazed at how you have immediate access to sources that took me weeks to acquire. I disagree with your characterization, I might add. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is clear on the fact that one-sentence coverage and descriptions are not significant. Half of your sources are not even about the topic. Your disagreement is clearly misguided.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * merge to a combination article as suggested earlier--as the reasonable compromise solution. It may technically meet the GNG, but it is more appropriate to the purposes of WP to have a separate article -- and then we have provision for other similar ships.  DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. Babylon 5 spacecraft has not be been discussed in any independent 3rd party 2ndary sources.Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable? That's an interesting way to put it.  And you're asserting that there's no way as a whole that Babylon 5 spacecraft would merit a discussion article?  Consider things like this, which while hosted at a Wordpress site is a trivial to find example of comparison of fictional spacecraft across different fictional universes, and even a couple of real world ones. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Considered and the link is not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - I'm copying the content of this page to wikialpha, because it seems like a page that fans could find useful, even if it may not meet the standards of the wikipedia deletion brigade. Mathewignash (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  Yash [talk] 12:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Without evidence that this is important outside the fandom it is inherently nn. Shii (tock) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Six reliable sources "outside the fandom" isn't enough for you? Or are you defining "fandom" to include commercially published works on the fictional universe? Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that there no out-of-universe content whatsoever in this article is a good sign that no one oustide the fandom cares to comment about it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Merge to some article about spaceships in Babylon 5. These are obviously minor spaceships from the TV show, which can surely be put with all the others that have appeared for a nice article.    Th e S te ve   22:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a list would fail WP:N.Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you know that without having seen such an article or looked for sources. Do you really think that *no* reliable sources exist on the spaceships used in an extremely popular and well-known TV series?  Truly, I envy you your prescient and instantaneous research skills...  Th e S te ve
 * ... Especially since I've found plenty of reliable sources for this one. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2013 (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.