Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator technology (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predator technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article consists of fictional world trivia. The main article, Predator (alien), has the type of short summary of the topic that is appropriate for wikipedia. This entire article is fictional topic with no real-world notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to annex.wikia.com 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Here's the link: [1][reply]
Good call. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikia isn't a sister project of Wikipedia though (even though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales), so I don't think you can transwiki Wikipedia articles to it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dondegroovily's rationale is pretty spot-on: The thing is almost entirely sourced only to the primary source material (the films & comics themselves). What little real-world info there is (as far as design & prop creation) is already present in the main article about the creatures & in the articles about the films. I nominated this for merging a couple years ago but never got around to actually merging it, & looking at it now I don't really think there's anything of value to merge (the real-world info already being present in the target articles). Having an article on the fictional creatures is fine; having a separate article devoted entirely to their weapons & gizmos is superfluous. As for transwikiing, we only transwiki to other Wikimedia Foundation projects, to which Wikia does not belong (as Erpert points out, though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales, Wikia is operated by Wikia, Inc., not by the WMF, the major diffeerence being that Wikia, Inc. is for-profit while the WMF is non-profit). If Wikia wants this content, they can quite easily copy it for themselves under the terms of the GFDL. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for them to also copy the page history, since that is a major issue with GDFL here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and frankly I'm not concerned about whether Wikia wants or is able to get this content. As mentioned, Wikia isn't a Wikimedia Foundation project, it's a totally separate entity, and we only transwiki to other WMF projects. If Wikia wants this content, they can request it from Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL. The issue at play here is whether this content is appropriate for Wikipedia, not whether other, unrelated websites might want it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- two words: Excessive Fancruft. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate collection of fictional trivia. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft that's impossible to WP:verify notability due to a lack of third party sources.

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.