Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vehicles

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. John254 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles[edit]

Unreferenced list with no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. What makes a vehicle fictional? Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters is listed, but that is basically a Caddilac hearse, so what makes it fictional? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE - First, it's not a Cadillac hearse. It's a Cadillac ambulance. Second, the customization of that 1959 Cadillac Ambulance is strictly for the movie. The deletion tag should be removed! ----DanTD (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Ghostbusters article says the vehicle is a hearse , but in any case that is irrelevant, as I only used Ecto-1 as an example of a vehicle which is not fictional, but is merely a customised, real world vehicle. Lists need to have clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which this list doesn't have. The deletion tag must remain until consensus is achieved here. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It's a combination car, which means it could be either one. Nevertheless, the car was strictly customized for the movie, and there are plenty of others like it on the list. Those that aren't customized are strongly associated with the movies, television shows, and other works of fiction they appear in. Therefore the list should be kept. This sounds too much like yet another sabotage mission against articles associated with works of fiction. ----DanTD (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addionne (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Restructure First, Let's assume good faith that JediLofty is not conspiring against fiction. Personal attacks such as these do not help your cause. I do agree with JediLofty - as a category, it needs more clearly defined criteria. I do think this is an interesting idea, however, and with some time and restructuring to be more specific, easier to use and adding references, it should be kept. I think, for instance, with the amount of video game vehicles on here, they could have their own sub-section - this would help make other things on the list easier to find... Addionne (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I don't know if you're aware of this, but there has been an excessive campaign by numerous editors to purge wikipedia of articles relating to fiction, mostly under the guise of maintaining reliability, and avoiding copyright violations. ~~One of the more despicable editors has been one known as TTN.~~ Perhaps this will help you understand why I'm making such an accusation. ----DanTD (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's assertion that Ecto-1 is not a fictional vehicle seems over fussy. In any case, disputed vehicles may be removed from the list without deleting the whole thing. Notable vehicles such as the Batmobile and Thunderbirds obviously qualify. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only used Ecto-1 as an example. I'm still not sure what criteria are used for adding vehicles to the list. The Thunderbirds or Batmobile are wholly fictional, so I could understand why they'd be on the list, but Ecto-1 and Herbie (just a couple of examples) are real-world vehicles. I'm not sure why they are included yet, for example, the M.A.S.K. vehicles aren't. If this is supposed to be a list of all vehicles that have appeared in fiction then it will surely become far too large and unwieldy - if it is supposed to be a list of completely fictional vehicles then something needs to be done to clarify this. If the article is kept there really needs to be some clear and limiting criteria for inclusion.-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for similar articles. Lists of [items of a given type] in notable fictions are encyclopedic, as almost all recent discussions have shown in cases where the objects in question weren't utterly trivial themselves, or where there were almost no uses in notable fiction. That just plain isn't the case here. The use of major settings and objects in notable fiction is notable, and can be sourced as for all fiction plots and characters and setting, from the fiction itself. disputed individual items in the list can be disputed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speed Clean-up. The list is not problem: the entries are. There is unsourced and non-notable entries. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unmaintainable list that could be better served by categories of fictional automobiles, fictional aircraft, and so on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this gives us nothing that the category "Fictional vehicles" couldn't. Deb (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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.