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 Keep. non admin closure Cenarium^Talk 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttles in fiction

[edit]

This article's sole purpose appears to be an expanded version of those "in popular culture" sections that are essentially trivia sections, which are discouraged. While all of this information may be wonderful in articles about the various individual works, I don't see the purpose of having the big repository list, especially as it's not directly related to the real space shuttle program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems I was unclear about my reason for deletion, I am specifically saying that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as no original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion. In popular culture sections or articles are not discouraged, and are clearly not trivia sections (according to WP:TRIVIA). They show how notable things are referred to in notable works, where the form a key part of the plot, or the setting. The point of an encyclopedia is to collect information about important concepts in appropriate packages, and this approach is a perfectly good one,and rather common in the academic world. the article needs improvement--not everything is necessarily important,and it should have explicit sources. That's a matter for editing. The nom. doesnt like such articles, which is his prerogative, but not a relevant argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons DGG gave much more eloquently than I could. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears just a random collection of films appearances of the Space Shuttle in Film and TV - it is COMPLETELY unreferenced, makes no attempt to distinguish between notable and non-notable appearances or indeed to make any sort of notbility arguments whatsover. It is in addition riddled with OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantive reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need significant improvement (more references, less OR, make it less like a list) but it can still be turned into something useful. Additionally, as was mentioned above, "in popular culture" sections are not specifically discouraged. --Hydraton31 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep i dont find a reason to delete it , if not found to be fit under wiki standard then we must leave it for other editors to fix it or clean it . so i think placing a tag if necessary would fix the solve the issue .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source. Can't get far with an empty tank. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the prose style of this article makes it easier to properly reference. I disagree that fictional portrayals of highly notable concepts are horribly unencyclopedic. --Canley (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question that the article needs better sourcing and bit of a a rewrite but those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dravecky and Canley. Space Shuttles are noteable. Lots42 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Until someone publishes an article or book on treatment of space shuttles in fiction there is no reason to cover it here. Like most pop culture spinoffs, this article reflects a lack of courage to deal with out-of-control trivia lists. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is a very extreme solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's extreme, but not inappropriate for an article that cites no secondary sources at all. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like "In popular culture" sections, but I don't really have a problem with list articles, and this seems to be more like the latter. — Omegatron 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It could use some sourcing, and is a little disjointed. That said...NASA, in fact, maintains a page specifically about space shuttles in science fiction for educational purposes. Isaac Asimov saw them as a significant enough theme in some science fiction to collect an anthology specifically about them (Space Shuttles by Asimov). This is merely touching science fiction; there are numerous articles on JSTOR about cultural references and fictional coverage of space shuttles following the Challenger disaster for example. Sources exist, the topic is important. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Coanda-1910. THE KC (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep: Valid subject. Article needs rewrite and sourcing, not deletion. The article is not trivia per WP:TRIVIA, any highly important fact (like space shuttle) depicted in popular culture and media are valid encyclopedic subject. Nom's rationale for deletion is vague and probably based on misunderstanding of wikipedia policies. I smell disruption on such unclear nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At worst its a valid sub-article to avoid an overly long 'in popular culture' section in the main space shuttle article. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:14, 4 April 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.