Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of castes from the Alien expanded universe

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 keep --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of castes from the Alien expanded universe[edit]

This article is an inappropriate compilation of the cast information from various Alien and Predator media articles. The cast and characters of the individual movies and other media articles belong in their own articles, not compiled here as it is purely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is about aspects of the expanded universe which are not featured in the movies, so no, duplication is not the goal. If there are sections which overlap, these should be changed, of course. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references and presence of original research -- I don't think "Razor Claws" is any sort of official/cite-able label, for example. This looks mostly like trivia; a more appropriate treatment in some other article would look at production reasons for creatures' various appearances across media (e.g. the Alien3 creature being given more doglike features to reflect its host -- if this list were to include the whole franchise, that is). --EEMIV (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Razor Claws" is the name it has in the game. Anyway, the article can be improved, so I don't see why it should be deleted just because it currently lacks sources. Rather address the problems you think the article has on the talk page. I personally think the article should focus on the expanded universe overall, like with Star Wars, not just the castes, but that's an issue with the title, not the content. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my proposal here: [1] Funkynusayri (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combination articles like this are the appropriate way to handle these topics. DGG (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verifiable list concerning elements of a notable franchise). As it does not advance a thesis, it is not original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not fond of this article, but it does offer a decent safety valve for non-canonical information not relevant to the "serious" articles like Alien (Alien franchise). Serendi ^pod ous 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Such articles are occasionally appropriate, when they have reliable sources and real world notability, and so far this article demonstrates neither. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and due to a lack of reliable sources and out of universe coverage. Nomenclature includes some original research. Edison (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, why not simply propose what should be changed instead of voting delete? It's pretty simple, claiming "original research" is present, without even giving valid examples, is kind of useless. There is plenty of stuff in the Aliens novels and comics which could be discussed in this article, again, see the Star Wars expanded universe article. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it certainly requires some cleaning up and verifying, the content is valid for an encyclopedia. Deleting would resulting in people simply adding more to the Xenomorph article etc. Kilo T 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some more real-world sourcing is certainly possible, so I see no need to delete the article although it could certainly be improved. The nominator is aware, I hope, that this article is about caste information, not cast information, as the rationale for deletion seems to indicate they have misunderstood what the article is about in the first place. --Canley (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (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.