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.
A fictional spaceship. Prod tags removed. No sources, no real world notability. To my mind, it is not very interesting even within the show. Previous debates have revealed a hard core of Farscape editors, who argue furiously for the retention of Farscape articles but never actually add citations to back up their claims. SolidPlaid 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not notable. Seriously. - Rjd0060 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. isaid 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of deleting first, then redirecting. Of course I would just redirect, if that didn't leave the history for all time. SolidPlaid 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here since, for example, you had no problem redirecting Warwick Elementary School without it first being deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I bring elementary schools to AfD people complain that I should just redirect. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should tell you something. PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If I went and began redirecting precious Farscape articles, people would complain that they were notable, if only I did some real research, or tell me I had redirected them to the wrong place. SolidPlaid 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What do you have against retaining the edit history? What difference does it make to you? PC78 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article survives if its history survives. I believe that fewer non-notable articles would be created if people feared the articles would vanish forever once deleted. Why do you want the history to survive? The only possible explanation is that you want some trace of it to survive. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history should be retained for future reference, and the posibility remains that a viable article may be created at some point in the future. It wouldn't be causing any harm and shouldn't be deleted without good reason, and I don't see you giving one. I don't like it doesn't count. PC78 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want the the article to remain somewhere for the future, which demonstrates my point. The harm is that fans can write an article on anything, no matter how non-notable, and hope that it will exist forever in history limbo even after deletion. I want to extinguish that hope to preclude the future creation of articles on non-notable topics. Do you understand? Wikipedia is not a vehicle to immortality. SolidPlaid 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You almost seem to be ranting, and you still haven't addressed my point. Why does this particular edit history need to be deleted? PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another interpretation is that you don't get what I am saying. I believe that I have made my point. This particular edit history needs to be deleted because it is the one being debated right now. SolidPlaid 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rtoFarscape. Not needing its own article. ffm 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoFarscape. While I wouldn't complain if the article remained, redirection with retained history is a better alternative to the heavy-handed "delete first" approach. --Ckatzchatspy 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes heavy-handed approaches are appropriate. SolidPlaid 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes, but why would they be in this particular case? I don't see a real benefit... --Kizor 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then RedirecttoFarscape. As a standalone stub article it borders into 'cruft with little to no notability outside of the Farscape universe. The thing could perhaps be compared to various USAF, NASA, RFSA, or ESA spaceship designs; but without reliable sourcing that effort would eventually collapse into the OR vacuum. There is some material to merge in an orderly fashion into the parent article though. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article content has no sources to verify its authenticity or demonstrate notablability. Removing a prod template and not following through with the redirect has left this issue unresolved. Advice to PC78: be assertive in your edits, be bold, and follow through with your stated intentions. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Delete, Redirect - all of them, in that order. I find SolidPlaid's comments point-on. There is something to the view that if a non-notable article is merely redirected it will be resurrected somewhere down the road without the notability concern being addressed. --Jack Merridew 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Per other users' comments on this page. Rray 20:05, 14 October 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.
