Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (3rd 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 no consensus. That is, no consensus between merge and keep. Nobody agrees with deletion. Whether this content should be merged is perhaps better further explored on the article talk page than in an IVth nomination. Sandstein 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV

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

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

Look. I like SW just like any other SF fan, but this minor plot device is not notable - fails WP:NFICTION. The article is an in-universe description, plus an overview of merchandise, desperate enough to even mention that the ship appeared on two individual cards of related collectible card games. I am sure it can be expanded with mentions of video games and books it was mentioned in too... but let's face it, the topic has no real world impact outside a few toys. It is mentioned in passing in some books on Star Wars, but nobody dedicated as much as a paragraph to this, a sentence or two in passing is all it gets. Not all plot devices (ships, etc.) from SW are notable, folks. This is not a Deathstar, Star Destroyer or Millenium Falcon, this is funcruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars spacecraft. Editors agree that the list should exist, so it seems like an adequate place to put this information, which isn't notable enough for a page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trap! The idea that lists are a sensible place to consolidate such material is mistaken. When you have an extensive fictional franchise and universe like this, the lists tend to become huge and difficult to read. People use devices like phones and smart speakers now so it's best if our content is organised in small, well-named pieces rather than endless scrolls. And, here's the trap: the fiction-hating deletionists are now going after the lists too, as there are numerous D&D lists currently at AFD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "trap" there. People need to check to make sure the list they are suggestng to merge to isn't also non-notable. Yes, there is such a thing as list notability, and the D&D lists all fail it. However, there is little chance the List of Star Wars spacecraft will be deleted because it passed an AfD before. Also, accusing people of being "fiction hating deletionists" is going into the realm of WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating editing as a battleground"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trap is obvious; that editors might be fooled into accepting merger into a list only to find that that the list is then deleted. This is happening in other cases because there are editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia but whose only activity is to attempt to delete such content. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list, not notable enough to have it's own page. Not a very active user (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been listed twice today - please combine the discussions. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the other listing, could you link it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops - some kind of page formatting error? At the very least it's showing up twice for me (at no. 18 and no. 20 in today's list of AFD's) FOARP (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's face it; this nomination doesn't make the slightest effort to observe our numerous policies of WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:CIVIL; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Instead, it's a time-wasting rant contrary to WP:NOTFORUM. The topic has great notability, being covered in hundreds of thousands of sources and it's easy to find good ones for our purpose such as National Geographic which reports that this craft was an exhibit organised by the Boston Museum of Science. If it's good enough for a museum then it's good enough for us. Andrew D. (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Ignoring the unfortunate WP:NPAs, sigh) Mentions in passing do not suffice for passing WP:GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A museum exhibit is not a mention in passing; it is evidence that the subject has been noticed, studied, curated and displayed for public edification. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - 99.99% of museum exhibits are not notable, and that includes film props too. Most museums have tens of thousand of exhibits, but few have .even a single one that's notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There's no actual reception in the reception section. Toys and merchandise mean nothing for notability. Without additional sources, this is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes gives significant coverage of the LEGO form of this ship. [1] I see mention of that LEGO set in news elsewhere. Small scale models(not LEGOs) of it and other Star Wars things were part of a Star Wars exhibit that went around to different museums. That's all I could find so far. Dream Focus 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Few paragraphs reviewing a toy, and Forbes Sites is effectively a blog hosted by Forbes ([2], [3], [4]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Star Wars is a notable franchise and the spacecraft are also notable. The WP:NOTPAPER The Tantive IV is a notable craft and the article is complete with RS. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Please try to use arguments that go beyond 'I like Star Wars'. Which source in the article is reliable, independent and discusses the subject in depth? Name one, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by Andrew D. and for reasons cited at [2nd dnomination. These serrial nominationss are a serious waste of valuable editor time. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources coverage in Forbes as detailed above, Metro, and Reuters to name three Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closing admin should carefully review the arguments, and be aware that most Star Wars nomination attract fanboys who vote keep without providing valid arguments. AfD is not a vote. When closing, I'll ask the closing admin to provide an analysis of the arguments of both sides. TIA. I will stress that not a single editor above showed that there are sources outside mentions in passing which do not satisfy GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closer should start at the top by considering the nomination. This is based upon WP:NFICTION which is not policy; it's a failed guideline and so clearly lacks consensus. The nomination's analysis of the evidence is prejudiced and inaccurate. There are clearly substantial sources covering this topic such as those about the movie model and its auction or those about the large LEGO model. The nomination also fails to consider alternatives to deletion, which are obvious in this case. The nomination is thus triply flawed and so the nominator has no high horse. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFICTION is a perfectly valid essay companion to GNG, and if you want to ignore NFICTION, sure - please show how this fails GNG. No source has been presented here outside a link to National Geographic, which I can't access, but which is almost certainly a mention in passing (if it is not, I ask that you quote the relevant paragraphs, provide a scan or screenshot, or expand the article, showing that the ref can be used for more than a single sentence saying Museum X has a model of this ship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thinking about this since I posted the other day. In the movie its just a toy/prop. The Forbes article gives significant coverage of the LEGO version of this toy. Various science museums thought it notable enough to have a prop/toy of it featured in them. Dream Focus 06:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the fact that virtually no real-world encyclopedic content has been or apparently can be written on this topic by itself. Also, it should be noted that Andrew Davidson's sarcastic comment satirizing the nominator's wording is itself far more uncivil than anything the OP wrote, and even were this not the case the civility of the nominator's wording is entirely immaterial to whether this article should be kept or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably also be noted that all (but one?) of the "keep" !votes are regular WP:ARS members who were canvassed on that page and showed up to block-vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per this source it is considered important within Star Wars fandom for being the first ship to be seen on-screen in the original film, but not important enough to have been a readily available vehicle in toy form. It should also probably be noted that apart from the Death Star, this is the only entry in Category:Star Wars spacecraft that is about a particular vessel and not a model that appeared in several iterations across multiple films. Given that not even Starkiller Base and Luke's X-Wing get their own articles, I can't imagine any more could be said about this than about those other topics that didn't get even articles back in the bad old "wild west" days of Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to catalogue die cast accessories and appearances on trading cards merely for being in the set. Excise that and the unsourced fancruft in the infobox, and this fits in the list perfectly fine. NotPaper "is not a free pass for inclusion" so stop mindlessly citing that! Reywas92^Talk 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars spacecraft, per Reywas92. A lot of the sources are on its various inclusions in toy and card sets, rather than on the vessel itself. And a good amount of the information outside of that is either unsourced, or sourced only to the official Star Wars websites. It would make a perfect candidate to be included on the target list, however, as a ship that doesn't have extensive enough coverage to support an independent article, but is well-known enough to be a valid search term. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage of models/toys based on a fictional starship is also coverage of that fictional starship (just as coverage of any adaptation of a work from one form into another is also coverage of that work). As such more than sufficient evidence of notability has been cited above. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2019 (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.