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 for now. The nomination raises valid points regarding the lists, but the consensus is that these issues can be resolved through the normal editing process (i.e., by tightening and clearly defining their scope and membership criteria). Whether the list is restricted to notable entries only or includes minor, non-notable characters as well will depend on what inclusion criteria are selected. Neither option is without precedent and could be justified; the important thing is to define clear membership criteria and implement them.

Since the core of the overall argument to keep the lists rests on the premise that the lists can in fact be made to pass Wikipedia policies and guidelines, failure to produce such improvement within a reasonable amount of time (e.g., six months or one year) could form the basis of a future deletion nomination. A list does not need to become (or even have the potential to become) a featured list in order to be kept, but it does need to be able to meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion standards. The argument that the lists can be improved to address the issues raised in the nomination is not invalid, but it is essentially speculative until such time as the improvements take place.

Editors working to improve the lists should adhere to Wikipedia content policies and guidelines—in particular, the guideline for stand-alone lists and, of course, the policies concerning verifiability and original research. Lists, like all pages in the main namespace, may not contain original research and content in lists needs to be sourced to reliable sources; it is not enough to simply link to another Wikipedia article, which may or may not contain appropriate sourcing. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional computers[edit]

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

This list is ridiculously wide in scope, with with no assertion of notability. Contains few references and hundreds of items, ranging from minor characters, to title characters, to simply listing a series that contains robots. The page List of fictional robots and androids even contains golems and statues from mythology and overlaps with List of fictional female robots and cyborgs. Robots are such a commonly used fictional subject that the list is likely to become ever larger and more unreferenced. Categories are a much better way to organize this type of information.

I am also nominating the following related pages due to their similarity to the nominated article:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes they are WP:Original research, but so are most lists on WP. These are actually interesting, to some anyway, and useful to a person wanting to learn more about the history of computers and robots in fiction. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO articles on the history of computers and robots in fiction would be less useful since they would reflect the views of whatever sources were used, and would probably be almost unreadable. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being "interesting" and/or "useful" are not free-passes to ignore notability and referencing. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of other sources, not the original research and views of Wikipedia editors. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you in general. However, in this case these lists are far superior to what a newspaper or magazine reporter would have produced if assigned to do a story on the topic. Also views are not really being presented in the lists. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a newspaper reporter would also have to verify their sources for all of these entries, and most likely, people looking for fictional computers would care more about HAL 9000 than the "unnamed supercomputer from Superman III".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is an awesome list, comprehensive, well cited, nicely arranged and thoroughly linked to the other Wikipedia entires that more fully document these. For anyone looking to do further research within Wikipedia on these topics, it's an ideal starting point, and for the most part it provides the appropriate capsule summary level of detail that would be necessary to sort through it to find what you'd like. It's a better structure than a category for the purpose, since not all of the individual fictional computers in this list are notable enough in and of themselves to require complete entries. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Woah, you must be talking about the wrong article... I don't see any evidence that it is "well-cited". And though it may be comprehensive, not every fictional computer and robot needs to be listed on Wikipedia, since they're in a large percentage of science fiction. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be verifiable, and a hodgepodge of random listings certainly isn't. Even if they weren't notable enough for their own article, there are a total of TWO references, whereas in a well-cited article, everything on that list should be referenced.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally fictional entities should be discussed in their own context; there must be a reason for a list other than mere existence of a class of objects. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These pages are appropriately flagged as needing rescue because the lists are largely unsourced. However, I expect that the lists can be fully sourced and that the list topics will be demonstrated to be notable. The lists are impressive in their scope. However, because they were started before Wikipedians were particularly conscious of the need for sourcing, they need to be brought up to current standards. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSince between then and now, nobody has seen fit to add sources, and it is highly unlikely that people would in the future, especially due to the overly broad scope of these articles that means that thousands upon thousands of both notable and non-notable things would have to be added for them to be fully complete.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having worked on the sourcing of similarly broad lists -- the sourcing of which some people said would be futile (such as List of city nicknames in the United States and List of bow tie wearers), I am confident that these lists can and will be sourced. This AfD will not be in vain if it instigates major improvements to these lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List articles do NOT need to list sources. They just list links to other Wikipedia articles, which have something in common, in this case having fictional computers in them. Does anyone sincerely doubt the accuracy of the information presented here? Do you think someone who has read the books mentioned, should tell you exactly what page it was mentioned on? What would be the point of that? This list is very well done, and quite informative. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list does not "list links to other Wikipedia articles", in fact most of the items on the list do not have Wikipedia articles, making it a list of minutae. And as said before, what is informative for you might not be for others, who are attempting to navigate a badly organized and crufty list with an overly wide scope. Simply reiterating the fact that the list should not be referenced due to its "informative" status seems to show that you need to take another look at WP:Source list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, is not a reason to delete it. The information is easily conformable in the primary sources, there no doubt about it. I don't see a problem with how it is organized. Everything on the list is from a notable series. What do you possibly gain by destroying something others would find interesting and useful? If you don't like it, you won't be likely to ever find it anyway, and can easily ignore it. Dream Focus 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias towards the lists, I just think that they are unnecessary due to the crufty nature of the items listed in them, their large scope and complete dearth of sources. Since you claim there is "no doubt about it", then why don't you find sources for everything? If you don't feel like it, that's exactly what pretty much everyone else who visits this list feels.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not necessary, and would result in a very large pointless reference section. And you don't know what others feel, I certainly not feeling that. And no one cares if you think something is unnecessary. You can say that about any article on Wikipedia. They exist because people want to read them. No rules violated, no valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's an FL in there somewhere. It should be limited more, but AfD is not for forcing improvement. Stuff like HAL could have two sources by itself, so notability isn'at an issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content must urgently be protected from the public eye. The articles passes WP:LISTS by being discriminate listings that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most/all capable of being referenced and sorted out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~Weak Keep - Considering ~~almost all~~ some of the entries are cross-linked to articles I don't think notability or verifiable sources is a problem and the lists themselves seem to be properly bounded in the leading entry. In fact I think the lists are pretty well maintained considering how badly lists can rollercoaster out of control in Wikipedia. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that they are not cross linked to their own articles, but rather a decidedly random assortment of articles that have nothing to do with computers and/or robots due to their vague association with the subject matter. Not to mention that simply linking to articles does not satisfy WP:Notability. The argument that the info needs to be "urgently deleted" is irrelevant, since there are categories such as Category:Fictional robots. --_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry your right I don't know what was going through my head when I said almost all but there are some on the list that are. however I stand by my decision that the ones that are cross-linked to other articles should be considered notable though the articles they link to shouldn't exist at all if they aren't notable and I'll assume good-faith that the articles that they lead to are proper articles that are notable. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This list and the other 2 related ones up for deletion are examples of a Wiki working at its best. No individual could have constructed these. They are probably the most complete lists of their kind and are a treasure. They provide a unique insight not only into the history of the subject in fiction but into the way our culture has conceived of thinking machines. As wikipedia list go they are also in reasonable shape. Lumos3 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all the issues raised are basic clean-up ones. Each list should expand the lede to explain the notability of the subject and the list cleaned up so that future editors can intuit the inclusion of items. We need to be flexible with a work-in-progress. I suggest start with the lede so at least the rest of us know why these are important. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a good, useful and informative article. I don't know of another on line source that compiles this information in one place in this way. The "original research" sobriquet does not negate its utility. Obivously, it needs more research, more citations, more internal links, etc., but that is not to say that it should not be kept. Killing articles at birth will diminish the encyclopedia and keep a work-in-progress from becoming a full blown article. As a WP:inclusionist I think it is worth keeping. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Strong Keep Excellent list, just needs a reference migrated over from the mail article in each case. I am not sure how it is considered original research, it is just unreferenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this AfD debate classified under Science and Technology? Rilak (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Categories are not superior to lists and it is not our policy to replace one with the other - please see WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- very useful characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Somehow I don't see the utility of a list of fictional computers. It would be like a list of fictional airplanes or fictional automobiles...there's nothing very remarkable by itself about a computer showing up in fiction. Especially in the more recent works cited, computers are just part of the background furniture of the fictional universe. And some of theese fictinal universes have very little following; if a video game sells 100,000 copies, does its list of fictional artifacts make it to Wikipedia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The computer or at least the fictional universe in which it features should be notable enough to appear as a Wikipedia article in itself otherwise it shouldn't be included in the list. That is how I've seen most comparison/list/disambig pages keep to as a general rule of thumb. Having said that I'm sure you will find entries that don't have either slotted into comparison/list/disambig pages which isn't a huge problem as long as it is not allowed to creep out of control with dozens of entries of such. Of course some common sense and bold editors will be needed to keep it in control and decide if entries such as "unnamed supercomputer from Superman III" should be allowed but that is the same as a lot of comparison/list/disambig pages. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree that this could become a Featured List if given a little love and attention. It has a lot of useful information, valid links to Wikipedia articles, and a great depth and breadth of knowledge. It is organized in a easily navigated format and lends itself to continuation by multiple editors. We should work on upgrading it, not delete it.Sabiona (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep useful for readers interested in the subject and for any accademics studying the genre. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but I agree that the list is poorly sourced, and sometimes woefully incomplete. For example, "Adam Selene" is certainly one of the most famous computers in science fiction, but the list doesn't do him/it justice, IMO, and I am not sure how he is to be cited. Should Heinlein's book be the citation? Reviews of the book? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is nothing wrong with these lists a little housekeeping wouldn't fix - to get rid of them is to take deletionism too far - lists like these probably don't exist anywhere apart from here and provide useful information FreeMorpheme (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of significant things is notable fiction are relevant navigation guides, that facilitate browsing, one of the core purposes of a reference work, and are therefore justified by the basic foundation principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As long as it is limited to notable works and to important things in them, it is not a directory. ASs for trivial, some people tend to think all of fiction is trivial. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. In addition, as here, they can include objects such as those computers that are significant , but not significant enough to have an article of their own. It might be possible to have an article on every computer listed here, but it is not really necessary--for some of them, a list like this will do, Lists therefore discourage the creation of superfluous little articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 31 January 2010 (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.