Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Utah (SSBN-745)

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. Obviously Youtube videos as primary sources can't be a basis for keeping an article. We'd need reliable secondary sources. See WP:GNG. Sandstein 16:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Utah (SSBN-745)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG Quote: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." This is very minor element of a notable film, but not in any way meritorious of a Wikipedia article in its own right. The three references given are all dead links, retrieved 5 years prior to the article being created. Parkywiki (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: I disagree with your opinion completely. The element in the film aspect is irrelevant. I believe the Utah's role in the film is rather significant, in that particular scene. Their is no limit to articles on the Wikipedia. Additionally, technically their are four links regarding references. The first reference is the important one (youtube.com video of the Utah's role in the film) and validates the almost the entire article. The other three references I can not remove and they came with the template I used, as they do not show up in the edit screen, if someone can delete those particular three internet links that would be fine. Other Wikipedia pages exist on fictional ships, of varying (debatable) roles or prominence in their film, written or other medium, This article is no different. Additionally, articles exist on other fictional characters, including those of Stargate, or Star Wars, or Star Trek. I created this article and believe it needs to stay.

Combatpac (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Combatpac (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I just reviewed it. First reference is invalid, the other two are are duds. Clearly fails to assert WP:GNG. No encyclopedic content. scope_creep (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fictional warship that only appeared in one movie. No reason to have a separate article for this, and no reason for the infobox, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Torpedo it. It gets one whole mention in the movie synopsis, and that's tacked on as a minor detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I have respect for creator's intentions when making the article, it simply does not have enough third-party, reliable sources to support the subject's notability outside of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2016 (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.