Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFOs in fiction

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. Cbrown1023 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs in fiction[edit]

Original Research. Daong 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) — Daong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete depite the problems with the nomination - incomplete, arbitary - does the story I just made up about aliens make it on the list? - and unsourced list. MER-C 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — No valid reasons provided for deletion, seems like a perfectly acceptable article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and Delete This topic doesn't deserve an article, but some may find it useful as a category. Xiner 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and appears to be a list without mentioning the fact in the title. As a list, this would be absolutely unmaintainable. Hell, the vast majority of the entire genre of science fiction would qualify for it. This is too expansive and is unnecessary. --The Way 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-listify. There is no need for a list of works that have UFOs in them (though the size of the list does say something for the notability of the subject), but the title (and stub at the top) implies an article on the motif of UFOs in fiction, which has it's own set of conventions and images that have only a small overlap with the (purportedly) real-world UFO sightings/belivers. This whole "foo in fiction" concept is getting hit a lot at AfD because they tend to start as lists of works with foo then get deleted because they aren't good lists. Control the listcruft, but not by destroying the stubs they're growing on. BCoates 13:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we drop the list, we have an unsourced stub containing original research. The list isn't sourced either. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR. GRBerry 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MatthewFenton and BCoates. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:17, 19 December 2006 (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.