Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional tanks

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. Can be userfied on request by anyone interested in working on sourcing and improving it. Sandstein 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional tanks[edit]

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

The list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are an absolutely massive number of fictional tanks, and the list would be excessively long. There has also not been any substantial coverage of fictional tanks as a concept, so the list is not encyclopedic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An indiscriminate list. Anything here should either be in Category:Fictional tanks, or else merged to the works of fiction where they originated. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is not a massive number of notable fictional tanks. If this article limits its scope to only what is notable then it could prove to be a very worthwhile venture. In any case it does not violate indiscriminate, and cannot be deleted on that grounds. It is clear that some effort has been put into the article thus far and it should be given a chance.

All the tanks that are notable enough to have articles are at Category:Fictional tanks already. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List with a clear inclusion criteria and there are notable entries to populate it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 sources. None of these are notable either.― Padenton|✉ 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources, content is largely in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 13:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, definitely a notable subject, but the article is not ready for main space. Needs sourcing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:02, 20 April 2015 (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.