Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberator (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. I haven't redirected as I don't view this as a plausible search term, but if someone wants to take responsibility for merging some of the content somewhere as suggested by User:Peterkingiron I'll happily restore to their user space. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberator (Blake's 7)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 06:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for reliable sources since 2011. 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) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. 21:16, 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) 06:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stephenb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. About the best I can find is this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7 is certainly not obscure! Stephenb (Talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I've added it to the UK delsort in an effort to help. Find me the significant coverage of this fictional ship in reliable sources. That's where you need to focus your efforts. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever" - patronising much? This is a 38-year-old show and most good references are going to be in hard-copy form, so it will take me a while to collate them (as suggested above). Here's something from the Telegraph online if you want something right now: [1]. But I don't see why there is a rush to delete a 10-year-old article. Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than anything I could find. The article is not about the ship, it's more of chatty piece about "a show so gloriously low budget that even the apostrophe was missing in its opening titles. The Liberator was the best looking thing in it, being a super futuristic spaceship that resembled the Starship Enterprise bred with a Toilet Duck. Turns out that some bloke (and it will be a bloke) had got the original model of the Liberator parked in his back garden and suddenly wanted rid of it," etc. But I grant you it's a start. Still a long way from meeting WP:GNG. As for the 10-year-old thing, that's utterly irrelevant. The fact that we've waited this long to address this problem shows we're not in a rush. The are other wikis where kruft like this belongs -- I don't see it belonging here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to vote as I don't have any particular interest one way or the other in this topic, but I will say to the North Americans, who maybe are a bit baffled by the strength of opinion from some British editors on this topic, that if you are British this TV show is most certainly not obscure, having been broadcast during the primetime early evening slot, and is very fondly remembered by many misty-eyed 40 and 50-something Brits. Nevertheless, none of that is particularly relevant to these two deletion discussions, and I do wonder if there are enough sources even in print form from the 1970s that actually discuss the ships in detail, rather than the TV series – at the moment they do seem to be mainly OR. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been the subject of independent coverage by Den of Geek ([2] [3] [4]), and in addition, coverage in other sources ([5]). —Mythdon 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect -- My view is "one franchise: one article". Sometimes it may be appropriate to have an article on the series and a list article on its characters. It might be appropriate to have one list article on Starships in Blake's 7; that is as far as I would be prepared to go. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So... Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars only, eh? Your opinion is certainly understandable, but not in line with Wikipedia policies or past consensus on such articles. I don't mind a merge as an editorial decision, but to compel one through the AfD process is not supported with the sourcing, as I've opined above. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Blake's 7. When you take out the large amounts of unsourced fancruft, you really aren't left with much. In fact, since the current build of the article has no sources, you are left with nothing. As with the other current AFD related to this show, the Den of Geeks sources mentioned here do not act as reliable sources. They only talk about the ship in the format of a plot summary of the episodes, and do nothing to talk about the ship in any sort of depth, or establish any sort of wider notability. The closest thing we have to a source that actually does talk about the ship in any way beyond a simple plot summary is the Telegraph article, and even that is mostly about the show as a whole, only talking about the ship in the context of the recent sale of its model. And that just isn't enough to act as the sole reference for an article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 11:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all to expect that this, when there's been consensus for other articles, would have the necessary improvements needed and that's because it's non-existent, it's simply a trivial character article. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable of Blake's 7 and no RS offered or available. Den of Geeks is not RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2016 (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.