Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Andromeda star systems

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. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andromeda star systems[edit]

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

Much as I loved Andromeda, I feel this list is nothing more than fancruft. Most of the systems themselves were not even notable within the series (the only exceptions I expect being Seefa, Tarn Vedra and Hephaistros), and certainly are not notable outside the series. There are no external sources, nor are there likely to be. Fails on notability grounds, synthesis grounds, fancruft grounds and original research grounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in Andromeda (which is what a user who types this in the search box is probably looking for), but add a hatnote pointing back to Andromeda (TV series)#Major star systems.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it does not satisfy WP:GNG; all references are to the show episodes. A hatnote in List of stars in Andromeda may be WP:NAMB. I don't think that is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of not-individually notable fictional elements belonging to a notable fictional franchise are fine, and we have plenty of precedent for keeping them. The nomination is fatally flawed by the non-policy-based arguments and assumptions about notability ("not even notable within the series"). Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contrary to what the above user would have us believe, lists are not exempt from notability requirements: per WP:NLIST, "...a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which is not the case here since the only sources are primary and thus not independent. Also, random fictional elements do not magically become notable just because they belong to a notable work, per WP:NRVE. Also, WP:otherstuffexists is not a valid argument in AfD. The nomination is thus perfectly grounded in policy, and it's actually the "keep" comment above which appears fatally flawed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it needs to be renamed, since it is not about the real-life topic of star systems in the Andromeda Galaxy or Andromeda Constellation. So it should be called List of Andromeda (TV series) star systems. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement that all articles are subject to the notability criteria that they must both make a valid assertion to notability and that be supported by independent and reliable sources. The article has no sources, and the argument that we have other similar articles is not very strong. Certainly not enough for us to ignore that fact that it does not appear that this particular subject has gained the attention of any major publications where it has been the focus. Lastly a redirect seems inappropriate here since it makes no distinction that it's a television series and if it were to actually redirect it should redirect to List of stars in Andromeda. Mkdw ^talk 07:20, 30 April 2013 (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.