Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warlock class 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 delete. v/r - TP 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Warlock class destroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Almost completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Compare parallel case of Victory class destroyer, also nominated. There seem to be yet more of this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge (selectively merge) to EarthForce, the article which describes the fictional fleet of which this is a member, unless multiple independent and reliable secondary sources can be found with significant coverage. A general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not a suitable site, such as a dedicated fanWiki, to regurgitate every small detail about every gadget described from a fictional work. This appears to be sourced to the fictional franchise (primary source) and to a book published by that company (not an independent source). Edison (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that EarthForce itself is also entirely in-universe, as are most sister articles. We don't want to just reduce the amount of such material, we want to get rid of the lot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What a telling statement. However honest that may be, it's not consistent with building a high-quality encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is getting rid of unsuitable content not consistent with building a high-quality encyclopedia? No bad content is clearly better for the encyclopedia than less bad content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What a telling statement. However honest that may be, it's not consistent with building a high-quality encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that EarthForce itself is also entirely in-universe, as are most sister articles. We don't want to just reduce the amount of such material, we want to get rid of the lot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to list of starships in Babylon 5, which could use a bunch of other things merged into it, too. I am physically separated from my B5 reference library, and so can't look up hardcopy references right now, but believe that there are probably a few RS print references. Regardless of that, a merge is probably the most appropriate encyclopedic outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (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.