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. WP:SAL does imply that it is possible this could be a useful topic for an article. However, that same guideline also states that stand-along lists much meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. The general feeling I'm getting from this discussion is that this list fails both. There is only one reference for the whole article. This close has no prejudice against a re-creation that is well-referenced throughout, or against tasteful inclusions in other articles, provided they are similarly well-referenced. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carriers in fiction[edit]

This is a loose and indiscriminate collection of trivia and original research. The fact that aircraft carries are mentioned in a piece of media is not relevant to the topic as a whole. Popular culture sections in articles are meant to briefly describe how the topic is used rather than just list every single little mention, so one or two paragraphs in the main article may be suitable. TTN (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - delete this and save what's actually useful in other articles. Specific aircraft carriers' appearances might be mentioned in their own articles, generic appearances in the generic article. Apart from anything else this is a woefully incomplete and US-centric list. I hate to think how many times an aircraft carrier appears as part of a WW2 naval novel, for example .... MadScot (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article really doesn't have much to say about aircraft carriers, except that they appear at least once in a huge number of mediums. There are a few things where the carrier might be considered central, but not really, and so little to no encyclopedic value. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:No original research. No sources provided to demonstrate that the article's subject is verifiable. Instead, the article is a collection of I spy trivia with nothing to connect the various sightings. Original research is in the form of an implied synthesis claiming that these unrelated sightings demonstrate the existence of a meaningful topic called "Aircraft carriers in fiction". --Allen3 ^talk 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you really need to provide a reference that says aircraft carriers exist in fiction? (your comment on the verifiability of the subject)... that seems self evident when a piece of fiction contains an aircraft carrier. Or are you referring to the verifiability of the contents of the article, and not the subject? 70.51.9.124 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Verifiability is needed to show that the theme of "aircraft carriers in fiction" is not being debuted on Wikipedia. Unless these sources can be shown to exist, Wikipedia is the first place to connect these pieces of trivia and say they are related, an act of original research. --Allen3 ^talk 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly general notable theme of fiction. I generally prefer these as merged to main articles. No sources at hand but there should be some out there...will havea look later.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to proper recreation - per Allen3's excellent argument and analogy. While the topic of "aircraft carriers in fiction" may be a distinct subject of popular or academic interest, the article is presently just a directory of often-trivial appearances of aircraft carriers in works of fiction. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not a matter of preference--the topic as such is notable, and the article appropriate as bringing together the material. If they apear in major works in a more than incidental role, they're proper content--and the question of which belong is for the talk page.DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know Apparently I created this article - sorry about that. The only reason I would have done this is to remove it as a sub-heading from the actual article on aircraft carriers. So long as you can guarantee this fluff won't get dumped back in that article I don't particularly mind what happens to it! Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that "Aircraft carriers in fiction" is a trope that has been discussed or analyzed. As such, this list represents original research by synthesis. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

I think we have a problem with this kind of entries and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As an article, they fail, the "subject" is generally not notable, secondary sources are not available, and they more or less constitute original research either built without references, on primary sources, or on Wikipedia itself. It's not very likely the New York Times is going to publish something about aircraft carriers in fiction.

However, they are not articles, they are lists. What these lists do (well the good ones) is present trivial, non controversial information (do we really need to call that "original research" ?) that is otherwise dispersed in the linked articles in a thematical manner not possible with a category. I don't want to invoke an all too usual but flawed argument: "but there are many similar articles on Wikipedia that are not nominated for AfD" (normally followed by someone nominating those for deletion), however I do make use of such lists now and then, I find them useful (well some of them). Some arguments against the list here would probably apply to List of science fiction movies or List of active Royal Navy ships and I sure as hell wouldn't want those deleted.

Another point here is that while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I should note that such lists are not entirely indiscriminate, they group articles found within Wikipedia, a priori subjects deemed notable by the community or at least worthy of inclusion.

I believe we try too hard to apply policies and guidelines designed with articles in mind to a different kind of beast: stand alone lists. Unfortunately, the guidelines we have : WP:SAL, WP:LIST, WP:CLN are mostly style guidelines, we seem to be lacking (someone corrects me here, the closest thing I can find is WP:SALAT) a clear guideline stating criteria for inclusion of lists, maybe something that should be remedied.

Anyway, I believe this particular list is being unfairly judged through guidelines designed for something else. Is a thematic index "original research" or a useful feature ? Equendil Talk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think it becomes original research and not a valid subject for a list when it's a list that basically no-one else has considered making. List of active Royal Navy ships for example is a justifiable list because there are actually books published which basically do nothing but provide exactly such a list (with some details on the ships, but basically, it's a list of ships). The concept already exists - all the WP article is doing is applying a list concept which has already been developed. I doubt very much the idea of listing all cases where an aircraft carrier occurs in a work of fiction exists anywhere outside this article. Hence OR, hence pretty hard to keep it.MadScot (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SAL seems to me to imply that original lists are not completely forbidden, but says "be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge", which I don't feel has been, or probably can be, done in this case. A consensus for outright deletion here will presumably give a rationale for not allowing these trivia to be added back into Aircraft carrier. William Avery (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather meandering list with nothing really cohesive to bind it beyond the most tenuous of connections. You could make a similar list for battleships, tanks, submarines etc, etc. There is nothing to show that this theme is a notable subject matter in fiction, no works of reference at all. RMHED (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (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.