Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional landship (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional landship[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is nothing but a thinly disguised "List of fictional landships" spinoff article. Most of the article is an unsourced WP:OR list of different fictional landships. When that is removed the article becomes pointless, and actual referenced info can easily be added to the article Landship. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By reading the past discussions I can see why the content was originally split from the Landship article. However, most (all? I could not find anything that is related with the topic from the two given references) of the content here is unsourced original research. Perhaps WP:TNT is the solution here... Deletion is not cleanup, but any cleanup would make the article pointless as stated above. Ceosad (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such article like this anywhere else on Wikipedia: Fictional cat (redirects to a list page not about fictional cats as a topic), Fictional board game, nothing. There is no indication that the concept of a fictional landship differs significantly from real landships or why these elements are considered landships. If this is a list, then the correct name is List of fictional landships. And, as noted above, is largely unsourced and original research. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to landship, trimming appropriately, per WP:ATD-M. Neither the nom nor any above participant explains why this is unworkable (indeed, the nom advocates it!) and it is the policy-preferred option. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.