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 Restore redirect. No legitimate reasons have been brought foreward why the result of the previous AfD should be overturned (merger has already been performed). – sgeureka t•c 19:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space: 1999 vehicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Space: 1999 vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic fails to establish notability. It is not justified as a content split. These are not necessary to understand the main topic. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Space 1999 was a substantial series in its day, from one of the major UK producers of TV sci-fi. With the techniques of the day, model-based filming made the vehicles an important part of it. This deserves an article.
Yet again, I would also question what TTN thinks they're doing here, and if the damage they're causing is really a good thing? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why this needs to go to AN. The amount of damage piling up from this is getting ridiculous. Especially when categories are now being deleted because their entries have been filed at AfD, without even bothering to wait for any sort of consensus result. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damage is very strange take on it. There is no such thing as permanent deletion on this site outside of specific revisions removed for very specific reasons. Anything can come back if it establishes notability, so anyone acting like deletion is in any way damaging is being disingenuous. As people like to often claim there is WP:NORUSH when keeping articles, the inverse is also true. There is no rush to have dozens of articles on fictional minutia before proving themselves notable. These categories, regardless if the AfDs pass or not, still only have two articles, so you're kind of skipping the real point of deletion there. TTN (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fancruft minutia" seems to be what's passing for a popular reasoning here, but that's neither a valid reason per our policy, nor even supported by the evidence. In particular, you say "only two articles", ignoring that they're list articles. So you're claiming that 2001, one of the most famous s-f films ever, is so inconsequential that nothing about its vehicles is notable? Or here, a UK TV series which still attracts a large following, 40 years on? None of that is any part of WP's notability policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're using word like famous, important, and major as if any of those have any particular meaning in deciding Wikipedia's content. Sources are all that matter. The most inconsequential piece of a work of fiction can have an article if it's sufficiently talked about in sources. While I disagree that it should be a thing, current unspoken consensus is that only character lists are necessary article forks. After that, everything has to prove its own worth. These lists have no utility unless there is enough real world information to justify them. TTN (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Famous" is literally how we judge notability. We go by how much secondary attention is paid to topics. These are ship lists for two major fictional works, within the genre of s-f. Characters having a hard time in space otherwise, vehicles have always been a major aspect of that. This is why there is still such an interest in the vehicles of both series, why there is plenty published about them, why they remain such popular subjects amongst modellers (just look at the IPMS exhibition every year) and why we have articles on the people like Brian Johnson and Martin Bower who made them. (I expect these articles to be on your AfD list next). Andy Dingley (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fancruft minutia" is shorthand for obscure, in-universe plot details that no reliable sources take notice of, like Starship paint jobs: Why only Romulans, of all peoples, have any style or Lack of left-handed Uruk-hai in film: Fatal handicap or discrimination? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So apart from literally making stuff up as a reason why those might need to be deleted, do you have anything of relevance here? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion: AfD nom pages are the dark back rooms of Wikipedia where most experienced editors keep well away from. Lately many science fiction or fantasy lists and pages have been cut down one by one, with probably many more to go, and I really wish that some kind of moratorium could be set in place in order to have a site-wide discussion of where to draw the line. I'd suggest that if a page is "kept" in an AfD, even once or twice, then that page should be off-limits for deletion forever. I dislike commenting on these things, and to go thru the fights to save them which sometimes go on far too long even after cites are found and the initial reasoning for deleting them is fixed. Maybe harsh language, but here in the back room, where few enter, too many interesting articles created by caring editors who present subjects such as this one find few defenders (thank you so much, Andy, for venturing into these fights much more often than I do). Seeing articles being deleted from templates on my watch list (I refuse to keep track of the daily AfD nom page itself because I enjoy editing Wikipedia) and seeing that logical common sense is overshadowed by words like "Fancruft minutia", reduces that sense of fun and appreciation of accomplishment. The work of creative editors viewed by hundreds and thousands of readers (remember, people have to click on the title List of Space: 1999 vehicles in order to read it, so, you know, maybe they want to read it?) then, poof, casually upended. I've never seen an episode of Space: 1999. But other readers have. And what they do is to click on such things as this otherwise blah article on spacecraft because they care about the subject enough to learn more. Deletion is unwarranted here. My apologies if I've offended anyone with this comment, but please know that I do assume good faith while, at the same time, not understanding where the urge to delete established pages comes from. I just know I don't have that urge. So please assume good faith in my comment as coming from someone who doesn't have that mindset, and hence, being incapable of fully understanding it, needs to vent at what I experience as the illogical removal of long-term popular pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2020 (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.
More