Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Blackbird
- 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) SSTflyer 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Colonial Blackbird[edit]
- Colonial Blackbird (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 article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Looks like there are better sources here... Jclemens (talk)
- Keep Has been mentioned in prop auctions: here and here. It's mentioned in episode recaps: [1]. It's covered in multiple series-oriented books: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Frankly, all of these together paint a more central picture of the fictional craft than I remember, not having watched the show since its first run. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- As per usual, you've just grabbed every single mention of the topic without bothering to filter for anything actually useful. In what world is being one of several props auctioned off a indicator of notability? Cursory glances of those shows almost nothing at all useful. TTN (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, actually, I've done nothing of the sort, and you would actually know that if you ever, even once, had expended any modicum of effort in WP:BEFORE searching. It's a plot element, represented as a prop. Found the physical prop mentioned: real world mention. Found RS'es discussing how it was made within the show, and multiple ones discussing how it was used in the Resurrection Ship arc: commentary from outside the fictional world. Have you even read, in context, what I put up? Or have you just assumed that since I didn't include an annotated commentary on each source there must be nothing there? Actually, that would be consistent with your particularly and consistently myopic view of article potential... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's one of many props. There is literally nothing at all notable about its status as a prop. It has no more or less attention in either of those articles than any other prop. You'd have a point if they were articles on the singular prop being given exclusive coverage or even just paragraph of attention in those article. As it stands, they are utterly trivial. Are you seeing something that I'm not? Other than source #2's couple minor development facts, all of those sources are pretty much singular mentions of the topic in the context of the plot of the series. Source #2's couple minor development facts aren't bad, but they're trivial if that's the only good source. Please do not try to argue that being mentioned a single time in an entire book is an indicator of notability. The definition of trivial does not change depending on topic matter. TTN (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, actually, I've done nothing of the sort, and you would actually know that if you ever, even once, had expended any modicum of effort in WP:BEFORE searching. It's a plot element, represented as a prop. Found the physical prop mentioned: real world mention. Found RS'es discussing how it was made within the show, and multiple ones discussing how it was used in the Resurrection Ship arc: commentary from outside the fictional world. Have you even read, in context, what I put up? Or have you just assumed that since I didn't include an annotated commentary on each source there must be nothing there? Actually, that would be consistent with your particularly and consistently myopic view of article potential... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- As per usual, you've just grabbed every single mention of the topic without bothering to filter for anything actually useful. In what world is being one of several props auctioned off a indicator of notability? Cursory glances of those shows almost nothing at all useful. TTN (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources provided by Jclemens. That Jclemens managed to provide sources shows there was no attempt to improve this article before sending it to AFD. This is just another one of those AFD's where sources were out there, but the article simply did not have any references. You don't send articles to AFD if an article can be improved. You send articles to AFD if an article can't be improved and the content absolutely has no place on Wikipedia. —Mythdon 00:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.