Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion 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 keep as notable and sourced well enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Futurama

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The religion in Futurama is not notable because it isn't extremely important for the show. Fails WP:FICT. Tavix (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As opposed to the recently deleted Robots in Futurama article this article is referenced from a variety of reliable secondary sources. The relevant guideline here is WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Likewise in WP:FICT "Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted." The article satisfies the need for secondary sources and out of universe context and thus meets WP:FICT rather than failing it as claimed here. The subject not being "extremely important for the show" is the nominator's opinion and not a reason for deletion under Deletion Policy. I'll agree the article needs cleanup and probably some trimming but deletion is not the answer. Stardust8212 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While referenced, this is largely original research and the references are mostly primary sources. The subject is of weak merit and dubious notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a great topic for a thesis or magazine article, but as the sources are mainly primary sources it seems to be original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article, while not fantastically written, is well sourced, and is similar to "Religion in The Simpsons" (which isn't up for deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to The Annex. This isn't really an encyclopedia article, but someone obviously put a great deal of time and effort into it. It should be kept somewhere &mdash; just not on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The person who put that effort into it hopefully saved it to their own hard drive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Given that there are over 100 edits by various people, I find it unlikely that any one person saved it to their hard drive. If a deletion occurs, Crotalus' suggestion to transwiki is probably the best course of action, anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Or, just ask a moderator to pull the deleted content from the log. Point is, a presumption about how much effort went into writing an article is irrelevant to a decision about deleting it. Sorry if I was too oblique towards that end. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I'm certainly not disagreeing that effort is not an argument, but it's a fair note for a transwiki to a relevant wiki. Thank you for clarifying the purpose of your post, though. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. I've transed the bulk of the article to the Futurama wiki and done some cleanup as best I could, but I'm baffled as to how to repair the references. Help with this aspect would be appreciated. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup There are sufficient secondary sources in the article to establish notability. While the article does suffer from a few WP:NOR issues, they are surmountable and cause for cleanup not deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N, as it has not generated significant coverage.  While there are a number of footnotes in the article, most of them refer the DVD commentary.  The only published sources referred to are by the same author, and are about the Simpsons. RJC Talk 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Simpsons book has a section at the back devoted to how other series also have used religion, the sections cited in the article (pgs 229-235) focus solely on Futurama. There's also a second print source but it is only used very minorly. Stardust8212 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The secondary sources don't really show notability here. --Phirazo 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. In this instance, the notability is in the show's satirical commentary about various faiths.  Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepthis is a fairly good article for one of its sort. There are at least 3RSs besides the documentation for the DVDs, it is not written in an in-universe fashion, and it seems important to the show. Is "Transwikify to the Annex" one of the accepted outcomes of AfD? Don't we only suggest WMF projects as one of the results?  DGG (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that an article is mostly from primary sources is not a reason for deletion if the material from the primary sources is appropriately sourced there and there is secondary content as well. "Largely" OR is similarly a matter to be solved by editing.DGG (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stardust8212. Captain Infinity (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki; failing that, delete. I'm a Futurama fan, but I think it's inarguable that religion doesn't play a major enough role in Futurama to warrant its own article. The secondary sources don't establish that religion is a notable part of the show. Chardish (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is too long to be an annex and notability is supported by secondary sources cited by the article. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThe standard is notable, which in this contest means important in the show, not "extremely important".DGG (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with everything said by the first keep, . Cirt (talk) 15:47, 23 January 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.