Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimbus (Futurama)

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 merge and redirect to Zapp Brannigan. . Secret ^account 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nimbus (Futurama)

Nimbus (Futurama) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Zapp Brannigan. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Futurama is very much notable, and this article is well-written and well-sourced. I disagree with the nominator's judgment that the page can be "safely deleted" due to my perception of the value of the information contained therein. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Futurama's notability does not confer notability on everything within Futurama. The page is also not well-sourced, it's unsourced...nothing but wiki articles on various episodes. This has no significance outside the show, and very little within it (hence my merge suggestion). --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If we assume that the episode articles are accurate representations of the episodes, then the page could be sourced using the episodes themselves. I imagine there is a method for citing TV episodes, though I don't know it myself. I still contend that the article is notable on its own, due to the popularity of the show. I agree that this should be demonstrated in the article. Though now that I'm reading the page on Zapp Brannigan, I don't see notability demonstrated there either. -FrankTobia 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia itself is not a secondary source. Therefore, it's not considered reliable by WP:RS. Zapp's article has issues too, but the sources in his article are secondary, and he at least has some significance outside the show. Please read WP:AADD, particularly this part and this part, which explain why your arguments are off a bit. --UsaSatsui 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that Wikipedia is not a secondary source; that was not my argument. The sources are the TV episodes to which the Wikipedia articles refer. The TV episodes themselves should be cited (or perhaps something like this), and not the articles. I believe that since the information contained in Nimbus (Futurama) can be found on a notable TV series, and broadcast on national television, that it warrants inclusion. This fan site and these images show that it's contained in our cultural consciousness, which I believe makes it notable. Also we're going to have to agree to disagree that the policy you've pointed out ("Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion": "What about article x?" and "Notability is inherited") do not accurately represent my argument. Elements of every such TV series are not notable by default; only when they stand on their own (as I believe this topic does, albeit fragilely) should Wikipedia include them. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• But this one needs to, and not additionally, the article needs to show how the creators invented this device, early design sketches, stuff like that in order to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I don't have that information, but we can be pretty sure it exists and that someone has access to it. I'm willing to wait for said information to surface, seeing as how the article is doing pretty well for itself in the meanwhile. Perhaps this constitutes rampant inclusionism, but I don't see the benefit of eliminating good and accurate information of tenuous but existent notability. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: no established notability outside of Futurama, and not a major topic within Futurama. - Chardish 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment would the nominator explain why this particular page can be safely deleted, showing that all the material is actually a repetition from the other articles. Myself, I dont know enough about the game to tell--all I know about it is what I read in Wikipedia--and I'd like so information to help with a rational decision.DGG (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a TV show, not a game (I guess those articles do need work...)--UsaSatsui 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with DGG and would appreciate if the nominator could demonstrate the duplicative information in this article. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy. The Nimbus is already mentioned in all the episode articles where it is used, and in the main Futurama article. This article duplicates that, and adds no encyclopedic content to that information, so it is just unneeded, unreferenced repetition that can be safely deleted because all of the information, and more, is already on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Zapp Brannigan; and if information is duplicative or better presented elsewhere, link to that information so that it may easily be found by those interested. DHowell 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or prune and mergeto Zapp Brannigan; there is no attempt whatsoever to connect this to real life. Whether the article is redundant or no, it clearly fails notability. Information on the layout of a spaceship (much of it OR) belongs in a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Epthorn (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (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.