Content deleted Content added
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Keep''' as well-organized/well-presented list of notable aspect of cartoon, video game, etc. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' as well-organized/well-presented list of notable aspect of cartoon, video game, etc. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:'''Note to closing admin'''. An organized list isn't a justified keep reason, it leans towards "I like it" and nothing else. Anything can be organized, that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
:'''Note to closing admin'''. An organized list isn't a justified keep reason, it leans towards "I like it" and nothing else. Anything can be organized, that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''comment''' Good organization is not itself enough to justify a list, but it is certainly one of the factors. (Correspondingly, people rightly say lack of organization is a factor in favor of deletion). And I think most admins know enough to use their own judgment about what is the policy-based consensus without hints specifically addressed in their direction.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:52, 19 November 2007
List of fictional devices in Futurama
- List of fictional devices in Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The article is just an in-universe list of fake technology taken from the various plot sections of episodes of the Television show Futurama. It has no notability of its own, and therefore no references or encyclopedic worth is forthcoming. Without that, it is just pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If anything in there is notable outside the Futurama universe, it should be mentioned in an appropriate non-Futurama-related article. Fancruft. --Blanchardb (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as in-universe fancruft. No notability of its own. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We have this difficulty often. Futurama is notable. Of course it needs an article. And to make this article great, some sub articles make sense. But notability does not flow down hill forever. These particular items have no notability of their own. WP:FICT is helpful here. But the best measure is do these items have multiple independent reliable sources? They do not.Obina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A few other pages in Template:Futurama are similar.Obina (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete or Merge It is an interesting list, packed with facts, but its mostly listcruft/fancruft. The grist of the article should be put in the parent article as single line entries, not waste an entire page. scope_creep (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bad news, everyone! Delete. shoy (words words) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment Interesting article, saving it to my computer, sorry to see that this one got nominated, but I agree that it isn't really encyclopedic. However, this information will continue to be preserved in various forms between now and 3007 Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep/merge The items in quality, but the fing-longer, for example, seems to make the grade. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- How? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is just one of three typical types of fictional subject lists: Characters, objects, and locations. There are many, many more examples of such lists around. I think that such lists can be informative, and are merely separate page lists per Wikipedia:Summary style. - jc37 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as well-organized/well-presented list of notable aspect of cartoon, video game, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin. An organized list isn't a justified keep reason, it leans towards "I like it" and nothing else. Anything can be organized, that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment Good organization is not itself enough to justify a list, but it is certainly one of the factors. (Correspondingly, people rightly say lack of organization is a factor in favor of deletion). And I think most admins know enough to use their own judgment about what is the policy-based consensus without hints specifically addressed in their direction.DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)