Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vehicles (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles

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

Article is far too large in scope to accurately maintain or reference. Contains no references or assertions of notability, and was not referenced after its last AFD discussion (in which even keep voters suggested a category would be a better idea). Category:Fictional vehicles does a better job of organizing the vehicles notable enough for their own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A category itself might be acceptable if there were more articles on vehicles. Unless somebody wants to do an article on every fictional vehicle that has ever existed, I'd say the list should stay. ----DanTD (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I glean from your comment is that "every fictional vehicle" should be in Wikipedia. This is not the case, unless they are notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You "glean" wrong. I don't think every fictional vehicle should have an article in Wikipedia. Being on a list, however is perfectly acceptable. I have no interest in an article on "The Flying Fishmonger" (from one episode of Phineas and Ferb), or the "Roth SL Coupe" (from Kim Possible Season 4)," or "The Tank" (various episodes of Daria), or Al Bundy's broken-down Dodge Dart (various Married... with Children episodes). ----DanTD (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You admit knowing those? Damn. Jack Merridew 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far from not having their own articles, I don't think those vehicles should even be mentioned in an article unless it is a sentence in the plot summary of their own respective shows.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really a random collection. Almost any work of fiction will involve a vehicle, unless it takes place indoors. Note that invented vehicle types, the Batmobile and the Time Machine, are listed along with ordinary vehicles that happen to be featured in fiction. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced hodgepodge -- the majority of the vehicles are not notable in their own right. Warrah (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia magnet. Also as an indiscriminate collection of information, as unencyclopaedic in nature, and as bringing the project into disrepute. Please note that this is not an IDONTLIKEIT; I had a blast last nomination finding things for this list and will see what I missed last time. nb: *I* added all the trains from Starlight. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I know you've got a history of trashing articles related to fiction. Maybe your articles on the Starlight trains would be better off in the category. And what's with the Cities in Flight? ----DanTD (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Cities in Flight, thanks. My articles? I don't think I even edited any of those character/train articles; I just added them to teh list, here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't create them. My mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. The scope of the list is too broad, per WP:SALAT, to be a defining characteristic for an encyclopedia article. A category does a fine job organizing this material, but I don't think that anything extra can be added to the listing that is not trivia. Them From Space 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referencing will keep the list manageable. Manifestly notable topic. Converting or replacing with a category means that vehicles incorporated into parent articles can be listed, which they can't otherwise. I'd support a splitting (if folks thought the article too large) into cars, boats, trains, etc. Anyway, the whole article is only a measly 20kb long. I've worked on much larger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as a list of lists, and link to various lists of vehicles that aren't indiscriminate. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too indiscriminate. What do an AT-AT and the General Lee have in common? Absolutely nothing other than being fictional. A list that contains both is inherently too broad to be usefull. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is for fictional vehicles, so the two things they have in common are being fictional and vehicles. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the reasons given to delete I can see a use for this list. Lambanog (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and migrate over references from the articles. List vs Category is never a good argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More like a random collection of stuff than an article, or a list, as there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the stuff included-New York in the same category as Star Wars spaceships? C628 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too large to reference is a logical fallacy, and lists and categories are not an either/or choice. Please read the editing guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. This list is clearly centered around the first definition of vehicle listed at Wiktionary and not the second, although it would be good if the lead clarified that. If an entry doesn't belong on the list, the solution is to remove the entry, not delete the list. Trekker78 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like I pointed out in my earlier nomination, this list is far too indiscrimate, fictional vehicles will always appear in every ,media for one amongst other certain fact, copyright and licensing issues. Plus too large and totally unmanagable, plus vehicles such as "Christine", the "General Lee", "Herbie", "KITT" and "Ecto-1" are hardly fictional, they are based on real vehicles otherwise modified real vehicles. Not to mention most of these will never go beyond notability nor reliable third party source to have its own article. Donnie Park (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not every fictional vehicle in existence is listed, just those which are clearly notable. Form consensus on the talk page for anything you doubt is a significant part of a notable series. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside some clearly notable ones there that make up a small percentage of this list, there are plenty of non-notable and modified vehicles based on real vehicles listed there, plus how do you know they are notable especially all of these are unsourced. Donnie Park (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus looking at it, I don't know most of these listed there, I'll tell you what I'll do, I will delete all those without its own articles, also the redirects...once I done with all that, I will reconsider my vote. Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion back in May, and consensus was Keep. Now you are mass deleting most of the article, reducing it from 20,886 bytes to 6,639 bytes. I'm going to undo that now. I see several examples of things clearly notable, some of them even having their own articles The General Lee. Use the talk page if you believe anything is not notable, and discuss it with someone familiar with that series. Dream Focus 04:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you why I reduced it, why? because those removed do not have an article of its own, also they are not fictional (cars in fact), they are more like modified vehicles in fact. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and expand lede a bit. Certainly notable subject of interest. If the scope is too broad that is a reason to find some logical ways to organize and possibly split the article which remains a regular editing practice not a reason to delete all. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just going to copy and paste part of what I said at the last AFD, since nothing has changed. This list is perfect valid and no reason to delete it. If you were curious about the most widely known vehicles ever used in fiction, then this would be the place to find it. Quite useful and interesting to some. Please don't go through and delete something you personally haven't heard of, without checking first. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable as one can find in moments a source such as The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy - an encyclopedic entry about transportation and vehicles in SF and fantasy. That the scope of the topic is large is unimportant as it already has a scalable tree structure - lists of lists with articles as the leaves. Categories are irrelevant as they have their own problems and do not supersede lists - please see WP:CLS. This mostly seems to be a tiresome rerun per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "Fictional vehicles " is not a notable subject matter per se, so there is not need to have a list at this time. The list itself is not defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without notability or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than a magnet for excessive plot summary that gives undue weight to in universe trivia. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, what section of this article is in any sense a plot summary, let alone an excessive one? DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major plot components of notable fiction are appropriate for a list. The rule is not vehicles with their own articles for the vehicle, but that the book or film involved must have their own article--this has been the practice with all of these. Each entry needs to be sourced, and trivial ones removed, as always, but thats an editing question. WP:DIR would apply if this were a list of all vehicles in all fiction, but it is not. List articles of this sort are navigational articles, to facilitate browsing, which is one of the key functions of any reference work like ours, and are thus justified by the foundational principle that WP is an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some wish it deleted based on inclusion criteria. Please discuss on the talk page with me [1]. This is something that can easily be worked out there. Also, I'd like to clarify that when I said Keep, I meant keep the entire article, not have 2/3rds of it deleted. I believe most of the others who said Keep felt the same way. Please participate in that discuss as well on the talk page. Dream Focus 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear out the items which have no references, and work from there, building consensus. Ikip 16:01, 31 January 2010 (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.