Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfighter


 * 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 Move/Merge/Dab. There are a lot of opinions here, and the main one appears to be that the content is notable but is not necessarily the primary usage of the term, and could be merged into similar articles. Taking the consensus as a whole, I have moved the article to Starfighter (science fiction), proposed a merge there, and turned Starfighter into a dab with the real-world aircraft as the primary target, by moving Starfighter (disambiguation) there and re-ordering it. Starfighter (disambiguation) therefore becomes redundant so I have deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Starfighter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is based on a word, "starfighter", apparently defined by an editor and then applied to various fictional spaceships in different story universes without justification or sourcing. Basically all WP:OR, does not meet WP:GNG, and has been since its creation in 2002, despite concerns expressed on the talk page over the years. The content is redundant to Military spacecraft in fiction and the article should be replaced with a redirect to Starfighter (disambiguation). Barsoomian (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 14.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  04:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As my remarks above. Barsoomian (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entire article consists of nothing but a vaguely and arbitrarily chosen definition (with no sources other than the author's imagination) and a ridiculously long list of appearances in fiction. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term Starfighter is both notable and well understood in science fiction to mean any spaceship that can take part in dogfights in a similar fashion to a fighter aircraft. It isn't just something that has been invented by the author of this article, see for example The top 10 starfighters in sci-fi movies and television. The most famous example is the Star Wars X-Wing Starfighter, see also Star Wars: Starfighter or The Last Starfighter for other uses of the term. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notable in science fiction"? I've been reading SF for 50 years and find that unlikely. "Starfighter" was used in a video game, and a couple of movies; it's not a generic term. Most of the craft listed in the article have never been called "starfighters" by anyone. They could all be added to a "Fighters" subsection to Military spacecraft in fiction. Barsoomian (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The term starfighter is used in the various Star Wars films, books, games, merchandising, dozens of Lego models and so on. Due to the iconic status of the X-Wing and other starfighters it is a notable term in its own right. The popularity of the films has meant that it is often used as a generic term when discussing any sort of fighter spaceship, even if not referred to as a "starfighter" in that particular SF universe. I'd be quite happy for the article to be split: e.g. one article called "starfighter" (for Star Wars content) and the list moved to Military spacecraft in fiction, if that were the decision of this Afd. Deletion however is not the right course of action as it is clearly a notable term. The Star Wars starfighters are far better known than the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, so the Star Wars ones should be the primary link. Given that we already have List of Star Wars starfighters there may be some scope for merging of articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fictional model ships in a movie are not more notable than a real aircraft in the real world. I never knew that the Star Wars ships were called "starfighters", and I'm sure most of the world has not either. Aside from that, most of the other craft in the article have never been called "starfighters" by anyone except the editor who placed them in the list. Barsoomian (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/split The title starfighter should certainly be a blue link. Looking through the books linked above, the primary topic for this title seems to be the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.  The various SF examples should be moved to the dab page, if they notable enough and actually called starfighters.  The content which describes this as a general class of spacecraft seems reasonable but needs some good sources to support it.  Sorting all this out is a matter of ordinary editing, per policy. Warden (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I checked Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers and all have non-Wikipedia sources calling them starfighters. Star Wars and "the last starfighter" are already shown. Just a lack of sourcing issue, I think - not a notability one. Rmhermen (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the dozens of other space craft? How many of those have been described a "starfighters" by a WP:RS? And no one has bothered to do any sourcing in the 10 years this article has been here. Anyway, instead of trying to find excuses to put these under the word "starfighter" which I still think is not generic, just merge to Military spacecraft in fiction. Barsoomian (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That could conceivably be a WP:SS parent to this list, but note that this is a much better developed article at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There's some WP:OR going on here, but the concept is not, as CodeTheorist has explained. And while the article has indeed needed work for many years, keep in mind there is no deadline. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as both 1) a notable term covered in multiple reliable sources, and 2) a listing of substantially notable (as in, bluelinked) individual fictional elements. I was surprised as how reasonable this was a as a listing of such craft.  I wouldn't be opposed to renaming, sourcing improvement, or swapping the main topic with the real-world "starfighter", but this clearly does not need to be deleted as any problems that exist can be fixed through regular editing, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge of verifiable content to Military spacecraft in fiction (editor endorsed PROD). There's a long-term problem of WP:OR with the current content. Per Colonel Warden, the primary topic seems to be Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, with the term being more notable than I appreciated at first glance. The proposed merged content at Military spacecraft in fiction could be linked to from Starfighter (disambiguation). -- Trevj (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I (original proponent of AfD) endorse such a merge, as preserving what content there is and putting it under a more obvious title in an existing article. Despite some Star Wars fans, the term "starfighter" has no currency outside fannish circles, and there is no need to try to apply it to the many other fictional space fighters in the list. Barsoomian (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with this course of action. I'm not that bothered which is the primary link, if people think that the Lockheed plane is more notable then that's okay with me. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Space fighter, which I suggest is a more widely-used name with fewer WP:OR issues. I'd be open to a merge to Military spacecraft in fiction and/or Space warfare in fiction, but I don't think it's necessary: this is a notable concept by itself. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Military spacecraft in fiction, minus the fancrufty list (examples should be limited to individually notable ones) and the original research: While the concept is certainly familiar, without sources to support it it is and remains unverifiable and original research. I note that the definitive reference work of the field, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, does not have an entry for "starfighter" or "space fighter".  Sandstein   06:12, 23 July 2012 (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.