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 (and redirect). The central concern of the nomination is notability, and the keep "votes" do not adequately answer this concern. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Flight 815[edit]

Oceanic Flight 815 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not meet notability requirements - this is a fictional airplane flight that happens in the TV show Lost, and should not be documented as if it were a real crash. Any information that's important should go into an article about the show. The rest is not notable. Cheeser1 06:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain which policy dictates that we shouldn't upset the fans of a particular show? This is not, after all, a vote, it is a discussion of policy. Thanks. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There isn't one. This is an example of the Better here than there argument, which is explicitly deprecated in in WP:ATA. --Nonstopdrivel 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment to YechielMan. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My question is how central is it? The article seems to be lacking notable information, except what would only be notable from an in-universe perspective or what is already in other articles pertaining to the show. A list of people's seat numbers? A fake, inconclusive, and highly-dubiouis explanation of the the technical details of a fictional plane crash? The notability and out-of-universe relevance of articles have to be established. You can't just cite the fact that some other fictional spaceships or airplanes have articles, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This airplane doesn't seem to merit an article, as I see it, because there seems to be no information that can't be merged into other Lost articles, discarded as nonnotable, or discarded as in-universe. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment to YechielMan. --Cheeser1 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have specified in the article that this is a fictional accident. That's vitally important.Imagine a user who doesn't read English as a first language and who is accessing Wikipedia from a country that doesn't show Lost (and who therefore doesn't have a clue that such a program even exists!). It's quite possible that without clear and blunt notice that the accident is fictional that such a user could believe this is a real accident, and perhaps even write an article or report on it. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not one just for Westerners or for people who speak English as a first language. When something is fictional, it should be blatantly obvious that it is fictional. Edited. --Charlene 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, stating in the infobox that it is fictional doesn't change the fact that the rest of the article has an in-universe tone, or that most of the information is only relevant in-universe. While it is important that people know it is fictional, you can't fix that by simply writing the word fictional in big letters at the top. The fictionality (that's not a word, is it?) of the subject of an article must be apparent from the contents of the article, not an infobox or a "note: this isn't real" sort of a thing. --Cheeser1 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid justification. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and keep in mind that you must justify this article in its own right. Unless the notability of this airplane can be established, according to policy like WP:N, its contents should be delete-merged with other Lost articles, depending on their relevance. --Cheeser1 22:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree there. I did read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I still think the argument is justified here for the simple reason that the "whatabout" to which I am referring is actually a featured article. As far as I can tell, Oceanic Flight 815 is far more key to the plot of Lost than spoo is to Babylon 5. — jammycakes (t)(c) 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to feature articles too. You must establish the notability of this article 100% independently from other articles you might consider analogous. "far more key to the plot of Lost" is your opinion and is in no way sourced or justified. You might think it's correct, and I might even agree, but that still is not a way to meet WP:N. There has been no justification for this article, in its own right, that I've seen. The sum total of its content is a mix of in-universe/irrelevant "facts" about a crash that didn't happen and repeated information from articles about the show and its characters. --Cheeser1 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wikilawyering here, but in any case I have raised this point on the talk page for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I think featured articles should be an exception to this rule. The examples that that policy gives are when pointing out articles that are themselves of questionable or borderline notability. And featured articles certainly do not fall into that category. — jammycakes (t)(c) 10:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add a couple of other things. First, I note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is neither a policy nor a guideline on Wikipedia but merely a part of an essay that only expresses the opinion of some Wikipedians and does not have universal consensus. Secondly, this article has survived a previous deletion nomination where the consensus was to keep it, but to rename it to what it is today. It may need some cleanup and some more sources, but that in itself is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Finally, as far as notability is concerned, I am surprised that there would be any doubt whatsoever, as the entire series of Lost is about the aftermath and the survivors of this very plane crash. — jammycakes (t)(c) 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What this article needs is (1) any single piece of non-in-universe information and (2) justification based on WP:N. Your point about featured articles is irrelevant. Articles must stand on their own two feet, figuratively speaking. If an article is established as notable, then it would not be an issue of whether or not one is less notable than another. If it is your opinion that one is less notable than another, you'd have to back that up by pointing out why your preferred article is notable at all (regardless of what featured article you think it is more notable than). Articles need to be established as notable - this one has not been.
As for a previous AfD, that is not relevant. I see no evidence of notability in this article, and that means I'm going to nominate it for deletion. It doesn't need cleanup, it needs any shred of encyclopedic content. The content I see here is either (1) repeated (or could be repeated) in another Lost article or (2) fancruft about a plane crash that never happened. Nobody needs a step-by-step technical analysis (especially when it boils down to a really drawn-out "we have no idea what happened because it's just a TV show and they never bothered explaining it very technically") or a list of seats and their passengers (put the passenger number in each character's page, if it's even worth mentioning). The information in this article can be summarized and integrated into existing articles on Lost, or discarded as meaningless.
Finally, if you're surprised that there's a question of notability, then why don't you do something to establish notability for this article, rather than make extended analogies? Notability is not inherited from the show, nor is it inherited from spoo. I was hoping somebody would just satisfy WP:N, so I wouldn't have to AfD this thing, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. Even if it's an important plot element, it would be listed as such in the Lost article (it is, I'm sure of that). That does not mean it needs its own article unless you can establish notability based on WP:N. I've been waiting for someone to add something to that article or to this debate that establishes it as notable enough for a freestanding article, but no one has. --Cheeser1 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that while I'm not going to debate whether you're using "wikilawyering" as a pejorative or not, an AfD by definition is a discussion/debate of Wikipedia policy. I can't think of a better word for that than "wikilawyering" and would ask you to keep policy in mind in whatever response you have, if any. --Cheeser1 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank you to assume good faith, and not presume that I am "harping" on notability, when I am, in fact, asking that the notability be established. Everyone keeps referring to it, by inheretance or analogy, but such notability can simply be established by means of an actual policy: WP:N. That's the standard way to easily and amicably resolve this issue, and I'd love it if you could do so. Instead, I am accused of "harping" because I'd like to make this a policy discussion? --Cheeser1 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that notability isn't the be-all and end-all of criteria to keep an article. Tarc 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the be-all, but it is the end-all. Notability requirements are, well, required. Just because more things are required to make a good article, doesn't mean it isn't required. See WP:N. I understand the importance of being generous with policy, but policy is policy, despite essays and opinions to the contrary. If something isn't established as notable, it needs to be. If it isn't or can't be, it should be merged, moved, or deleted as necessary. Hence the AfD. --Cheeser1 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the whole point is not that there is some argument for deletion, but that there is no argument for inclusion. The series having many articles probably means it doesn't need another, when that article has not met WP:N, by not establishing notability or having a single outside source. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been tagged as in-universe for quite a while, no one has fixed it. I tagged it a while ago as lacking a justification of notability, no one has provided any. If everyone is happy to jump into this argument by asserting that notability could be established or that an out-of-universe article could be written, could you please actually establish notability or rewrite the article to be meaningfully written? It seems like everyone is perfectly happy to let an article sit there, with no notability justification, no outside sources, nothing in it but in-universe "facts." An article like that does not meet WP:N. It's clear as day to me, and I'm scratching my head as to why nobody's providing arguments that don't involve inheritability, analogizing, or "the fans will be angry." None of which meet WP:N. --Cheeser1 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, are you saying that it needs cleanup? I'm sorry but that is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If you have any problem with the way the article is structured, and whether it does not cite adequate sources and references, and whether it is written from an inappropriate perspective, please use the appropriate tags in the article, such as ((fact)) or ((weasel word)) where appropriate. If your problem with the article is that parts of it are written from an in-universe style (this may be true of some sections but it is not true of the whole lot) please tag those specific sections as in need of cleanup as appropriate, and explain what your concern is on the talk page. (I see no rationale or discussion whatsoever for the in-universe tag on the article's talk page at present.)
If your problem really is notability, however, I think we have already established here that there is no case whatsoever for deletion. The crash of flight 815 was a major, central event (perhaps even the major, central event) around which the whole premise of the series was built. If the article does not make that clear enough we should edit it to say so. There you go: no inheritability, analogising or worries about causing anger.
As far as analogies and comparisons with other articles--particularly featured articles--are concerned, they do have the distinct advantage that they are easier to understand, as well as giving us all some idea of the kind of standard of notability that is considered sufficient to allow an article to be kept. So don't write them off entirely. — jammycakes (t)(c) 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup? No. Establishing notability is not cleanup, it is an essential part of creating/maintaining an article. The fact that it contains no sources and no out-of-universe information simply reinforces the fact that it is not justified under WP:N. Justification under WP:N is not clean up. It's a crucial part of policy. Justify it, and the AfD is over. It will still need clean up, but clean up alone will not satisfy WP:N. As for your argument about its centrality to the series - if it's the central focus of the series, shouldn't this content be in Lost (TV series)? Most of it already is, apparently, and the stuff that isn't (list of seats, meaningless analysis of the mysterious and unexplained mechanical failure, etc) seem to be unremarkable. Make them remarkable, by sourcing them or providing analysis (not your own, per WP:OR), and then you've got something. The article, even after your revisions, provides nothing in the way of outside sources. Despite the revisions, this could all still easily be trimmed up nicely and merged. --Cheeser1 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already do have an article on the airline. But I do draw the line at the in-flight menu. That is definitely non-notable. (And non-verifiable.) — jammycakes (t)(c) 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the article on the airline is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or if anything, more reason to consider scaling back the number of articles we have about fictional airplanes. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: Many people have been speaking to arguments that boil down to "this plane is important" and "other planes and spaceships and stuff have articles." I'd like to point you to the following: Firefly (TV series)#Set design and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Notice that Serenity does not get its own article, and while the Enterprise does, but neither could be mistaken for this one. This article reads like a newspaper, including a flight manifest and an analysis of the crash. The Serenity article talks about the ship as it is a part of a TV Show, and the Enterprise article does the same. The crash in Lost is simply a plot device, and as such, could be included in the numerous articles (the article for the pilot episode and the show's main article, for starters). Unless some other notability is established per WP:N, and content is added to the article that merits mention out-of-universe, I still see no valid argument for inclusion (since, as I see it, the article and its contents fail as it is now WP:N), neither by analogy nor by inheritance. --Cheeser1 19:38, 27 June 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.
More