Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Destroyer

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 Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to make article cleanup requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Destroyer

Star Destroyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article lacks any link to real world facts it is full of fancruft and other violations of WP:FICT and WP:OR it is sitting with 4 tags with no fixes it badly needs to go.Jeffpiatt 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is no question that an article deserves to be written about this subject. If nothing else, there are no fewer than seven interwiki articles in other languages. The major problem is finding sources in literature related to Star Wars. I think the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars might be able to help. YechielMan 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I added the aforementioned cleanup tags just two hours before the article was nominated for deletion. This doesn't mean that the issues highlighted by the tags shouldn't've been addressed before I added the tags, but the nominator's tone might be misconstrued as suggesting those tags have been there longer than they really have. --EEMeltonIV 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question - What is the policy -- or, lacking that -- practice/precedent if a topic is worth keeping but the entirety of the article is overwhelmingly, perhaps entirely, unencyclopedic? --EEMeltonIV 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found that the article is at most blanked and rewritten from the start in such cases. In this case, it'd probably just be a trimming though. FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Hoo-boy, this is a nomination so full of problems it is hard to know where to begin. First, the nominator is wrong that the article is entirely devoid of real-world facts (though I agree there is way to much in-universe material), as it describes the history of the term in the early drafts of the script, redesigns and variants that came about from different models used in the movie, and the issue of the changing name of the Imperial class ship as it relates to the literature. Second, as pointed out above, the tags on this article were only recently added, leading to an astouding lack of research by nominator or bad faith manipulation of the facts. Third, WP:FICT has nothing to say about fictional things, only plot summaries and characters, so has not been violated. Fourth, I see no evidence of widespread WP:OR violation that would require the entire article to be deleted. Fifth, while this has nothing to do with the nomination itself, I do find it somewhat hypocritical of an editor who is a member of WikiProject Gundam complaining about "fancruft" on wikipedia. If Star Destroyer, an iconic symbol of modern science fiction, is to go, then I wonder what Jeffpiatt would think of deleting MS-06 Zaku II, an article on a FAR more obscure topic that has the same tags on top and which he has spent a good deal of time working on in the past few days. Nomination smacks of bad faith to me. Indrian 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Indrian. Needs cleanup, but is notable. Resolute 04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball Keep per above, and I find it hard to assume good faith with this nomination for the obvious reasons stated above. This article will still pass notability with flying colors even after my rewrite of the guideline is finished. — Deckiller 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I find your lack of faith, disturbing. Seriously though, just because it isn't real doesn't mean its not notable enough for inclusion. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 04:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of Google News results. The tags were added only two hours before the Afd; the current article is better than no article, and it is being improved since the Afd. John Vandenberg 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete about 2/3 of the article and keep the stuff that's important to Star Wars in general. Wikipedia is meant to be a general-interest encyclopedia: knowledge that would only interest a small number of people who read the article should be avoided. This sort of knowledge is, unfortunately, most of the article. - Chardish 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some cleanup but easily deserves an article. Davewild 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AFD is not cleanup, Star Destroyers are clearly a notable part of a notable work of fiction. There's no problem finding significant coverage in sources outside the work of fiction. (The question of whether they should be third-party or not is possibly not meaningful, since Star Wars is notable, and this is a spin-off of it). And there IS real world context in the article. Note the mention of production in SW?? You might convince me of the value to merging to a single article on Capital ships in Star Wars, but I don't see deletion happening. Especially not when the cleanup tags are but hours old when you make the nomination. And shame on you if you didn't check before making the nomination! FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is largely fancruft... notability in the Star Wars universe (or community) doesn't make it notable. It should be noted that in general I am personally not inclined to have encyclopedic articles on fictional concepts or objects unless they have some real-world applicability (which most don't). /Blaxthos 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly notable, a staple of pop culture (cf. for instance the reference in Spaceballs). Article may need to be trimmed, but that's another issue. Nicolasdz 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is a revenge nomination because your Hi-Zack article was deleted seven times really the answer? Clearly notable in a way that, I should note, said article on the Hi-Zack was not. There may be too much fancruft, but the Star Destroyer is a much more immediately recognizable mechanical design than the Zaku-looking robot which appeared for maybe a quarter of an anime and was depicted as nothing more than cannon fodder. If you're trying to prove a point, you pretty much screwed the pooch here. Maikeru 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is not revenge i was just seeing how things would stand seeing that this article has infomation on ships that appear in the most obscure places.Jeffpiatt 03:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - *sigh* AfD is not a laboratory. --EEMeltonIV 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Star Wars is obscure? Since when? I think most people worldwide have at least heard of Star Wars, and a good amount of those same people have watched at least one Star Wars film. At any rate, at least IMO, you're abusing the AfD area to try and make a point. Maikeru 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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.