Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorpio (Blake's 7)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Scorpio (Blake's 7)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for notability before deleting, as I believe it is notable but nobody has tried to clean the article up in this way Stephenb (Talk) 06:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been tagged for verification since 2009. It is far past the point of good faith tagging it. If there are sources of actual quality, all you need to do is provide some. TTN (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So tag it for notability, and give me (or others) some time to do it - I'm busy IRL so it may take me a few weeks.Stephenb (Talk) 20:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that it has been tagged for years with absolutely no attention. That shows the article is far past any point where tags can be expected to accomplish anything. If the outcome ends up being removal of the content, it's easy enough to bring it back assuming there are actual sources. 21:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed my italics. In general with long-standing articles (this one has been around for 10 years) I definitely prefer the approach "hey guys, I've found an old article that doesn't conform to modern Wiki standards, let's find some way to clean it up" rather than "Delete! Delete! Delete!". Just because an article has been tagged for a long while (and Lord knows there are a lot of them!) doesn't mean we should automatically reach for a gun. Stephenb (Talk) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't bother responding on the other AfD again. As I said, tags cannot be expected to accomplish anything at this point. All it would be is yet another indicator sticking on the page for the next five years. Tags are also for articles that the user feels can actually be improved by the tags. I don't feel that way. TTN (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stephenb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep a cursory review of the sources found above shows multiple RS mentions, demonstrating that WP:BEFORE was clearly not followed. An improved deletion rationale should deal with the obvious references available and explain why they cannot simply be incorporated into the article.  I'm not doing so myself, as I'm unfamiliar with this fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that your standards for sources are non-existent, I'm quite hesitant to believe your assertions at all. TTN (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm also puzzled by these admonishments of the nominator. I've reviewed the sources available in a more than cursory way, and I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources of this fictional ship in an obscure TV show. I see a few mentions in fanzines, etc. Like the other one, it utterly fails GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep has received coverage in Den of Geek, which means Scorpio has actually been the subject of independent sources. —Mythdon 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how notability works. They are recounting the plot and mentioning characters and plot assets in the context of the plot. They do not provide any real world information on the topic, so they are useless in the context of establishing notability for this article. TTN (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, TTN, it is precisely how notability of fictional elements is established: The reviews, plot summaries, etc. are the real world impact. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those reviews need to actually provide some kind of commentary for the topic. You seem to have gotten the idea that "topic is mentioned in reliable source = topic is notable", but it has to be "top is mentioned in source in a non-trivial way that can actually be utilized in an article = topic is notable." Maybe those are hiding a bunch of gems on this ship if you read each of them top to bottom, but searching just the name of the ship gives nothing but plot-context descriptions that are used in only the context of their direct summaries. TTN (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST  flyer  07:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources provided do not have any sort of in depth discussion on the ship, or establish any sort of notability whastsoever. Having actually looked through the mentioned sources, they only talk about the ship in question in the context of plot summaries, and do not actually say anything more than mentioning its name.  IE "the crew returns to the Scorpio" and things like that.  Out of all the sources that actually mention this ship, none of them do more than establish that yes, this ship was a thing on the show.  They do nothing to establish why the fact that it exists is in the least bit notable.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG, contains no third-party references. That such may be available is irrelevant; it's what in the article that counts.  Sandstein   11:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete only as there has been consensus as it is that these are not capable of being a sufficient independent article or being merged elsewhere and therefore there's nothing to suggest we should attempt so. SwisterTwister   talk  22:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- same as the other AfD: not independently notable of Blake's 7 and no RS offered or available. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2016 (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.