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 No Consensus. CitiCat ^♫ 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space stations in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Trivia collection, consisting only of appearances with no analysis. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I may reconsider if a better argument appears than this nebulous handwaving, but not before. Digwuren 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs improving, not deleting. JulesH 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Tells us nothing about space stations, nothing about the fiction set on space stations, nothing about how any of these things relate to each other and nothing about the real world. "Look, a space station!" is not a basis for an article. Otto4711 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability, anyone? CaveatLector^Talk 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of unrelated films that feature mostly trivial appearances of something. Crazysuit 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Crazysuit's concerns specifically, if this survives AfD I am willing to put in some time tidying & expanding several of the entries, but I DN wish to waste my time at present, if the Cabal have alreayd decreed the article's deletion -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Great idea for an article, bad execution. While space stations have been something that have become a reality, and visions of those stations set a target to aim for... this article is poorly written. If you replace the words "space station" with "mobile home", it illustrates how boring the article is. Bad writing can be cleaned up; I suspect someone else added in those references to the wheel and to L5; but if this isn't, I don't think it'll survive another nomination. Mandsford 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the title is ambiguous, it seems to be focused on fictional rather than the real one. I will acknowledge that space stations are scenes à faire in SciFi, like horses or scruffy looking bad guys in westerns, or blood and bone-chilling screams in horror films, nearly every genre has such (that's why we have a name for it, albeit in French), does that make them notable in popular culture? Not without sourcing that it is notable, and apparently none is found for this. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this article could be a keeper if it covered sourced analysis of these space stations, including their feasibility and their influence on real space station designs and ideas (or vice versa), and other notable information. As it is now, its just another useless list. EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe this is salvageable.RandomCritic 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom not notable Trivia Harlowraman 00:14, 9 August 2007 (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.