Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vagabond (planet)

Vagabond (planet) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Vagabond (planet)
A random factoid orbiting some fictional universe. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Merge with Perry Rhodan. DCEdwards1966 06:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, Perry Rhodan! My dad has the first 25 books. Meanwhile, not notable, merge into Perry Rhodan. - Vague | Rant 06:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Perry Rhodan and delete, else I'll start laboriously cataloguing every single spaceship and orbital, whether Culture, Idiran, Affront or Zetetic Elench, in Iain M Banks' Culture novels. And I Can! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't tell if you're joking, so: don't do it just because you can. Write for the ages is my advice. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it sounded pretty blatantly like a joke to me. Mike H 20:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't we just move it to an article about whatever particular book this is from? I support keeping the content somewhere. I also want to urge Tony to begin cataloguing; we will deal with it here if it's too trivial. Everyking 11:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ... we will deal with it here if it's too trivial -- I'm afraid you have it backwards. Step 1 in writing an article is to pick a topic worth writing about. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My point was that I figure it probably is worth writing about, but on the off chance that it gets too trivial, we will deal with it here. Hey...didn't I already say that? Everyking 15:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought it was obvious from my previous comments that I'm as likely to sprout wings and fly to the moon as I am to write detailed fancruft articles on inconsequentialities unsuitable for an encyclopedia, even though I like the Culture novels very much indeed. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) deletia and insertions --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you please avoid the use of the term "fancruft"? Everyking 15:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you please avoid criticism of use of the term "fancruft"? ---Improv 15:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * From now on i decleare the term fancruft be reverted to fancrust 206.176.103.66 15:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It is offensive to other users and demeans their work. Everyking 15:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Your criticism of the use of the term fancruft is offensive to me and demeans my work on VfD :) (sorry, in a silly mood) --Improv 03:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is offensive to other users and demeans their work. -- Good. If their work is fancruft, it should be demeaned, pour encourager les autres. We're writing an encylopedia, not having a love-in.  -- GWO
 * No 1: i was kidding and 2:I originaly thought it [the word] was crust, not cruft... to put it simply i was fooling around and while the comment was not ment to refer in any way to the works by other users (i have not seen any so i have no comment on their work), it appeirs to have been taken the wrong way and was not ment to offend other users. 206.176.103.66 17:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Foghat! (No redirect, IMO, and we really can't merge & delete, so just delete.)  Geogre 19:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Piecrust. --jpgordon{gab} 21:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite trivial piece of information, not even marked as fictional. jni 16:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if there's already some page that harbors this trivia then a redirect could work. And didn't I see mousebeavers on some rodent porn site? -R. fiend 19:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is subtrivial fancruft of an extremely unuseful nature.  It refers to a single planet in a single book, which means that if one has read the book that person already knows all there is to know about the planet, and if one has not read the book that person most likely has never heard of the planet and would not be inclined to seek it out in an encyclopedia.  I think a redirect would be most unhelpful as well because the main article on this series of books or the series' protagonist should not be bogged down by minutae of this type. Indrian 05:02, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete CO GDEN  18:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.