Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blake's 7 planets

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blake's 7 planets[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Blake's 7. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blake's 7 is extensively documented in detail in works such as A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7 and Liberation: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to "Blake's 7" and this content seems appropriate background of this sort. Note that 61 Cygni is in fact a "real world". Warden (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP Manual of Style says: "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." The names of fictional and real locations where the plot took place is something better for a fan guide, not an encyclopedia. BayShrimp (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW when I saw the title I thought it was about something in a poem by William Blake. I would have voted to delete that one too.BayShrimp (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this appropriate list of elements that are critical to the understanding of Blake's 7. It contains real world information from reliable, third party sources that establishes overall notability for the topic, so this is something best suited to Wikipedia. --143.105.13.12 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — 143.105.13.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A Nobody socking again.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people want that level of understanding they should probably just watch the show. BayShrimp (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (Hi, Blake here. Saw the AfD and had to post. hehe) These fictional locations would best be described simply in the their episode's description on the episode list. If there were reliable sources on the filming locations, those would probably best be put in the main series article, or somewhere similar. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFFy, this is a bit of a WP:CSB issue, I think. Blake's 7 is obscure now, but that doesn't make it any less valid a WP:SPINOUT than, say, List of Firefly planets and moons would be. What's needed here is sourcing and trimming, and AfD is not for cleanup; if what's left after sourcing and trimming wouldn't be WP:UNDUE in the main article, it can be WP:BOLDly merged there then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Yes, that is OTHERSTUFFy. "List of Firefly planets" looks just as bad. This article does not need "cleanup", it has no third party sources establishing notability. It is entirely first party sources, which an article should never be. If it was to stay, it would need entirely new content, not "cleanup", thus AfD is necessary, as we do not believe that content can be found. If you want to find some sources and put some of the content in the main article, that would be great, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from here.

Another matter, all of the related series articles seem to lack sources of notability, and thus should all be merged except for

History of Blake's 7 should probably be renamed Development of Blake's 7, as history sounds like fictional history. This is good information, but better sources are needed.
List of Blake's 7 episodes - I have no quarrel with lists of episodes. Pretty sure notable series are allowed episode lists.
A Universe of Blake's 7 AND/OR Characters of Blake's 7 could be made with the summarized encyclopedic information from these articles.

I don't mean to be one who rains on parades, but it just seems like the articles under the umbrella of this series have not caught up with Wikipedia's guidelines. Most of them were created over 5 years ago, and have not yet obtained the work they need done. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds pretty good to me. I'd be willing to merge this stuff into Universe of Blake's 7, if there were consensus to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While we have multiple articles on this series, I do not see why we should not keep this list. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other bad articles exist does not mean we should keep this one. Those should be merged too, as I have said above. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging or reworking as per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and edit. Rename to Universe of Blake's 7 or similar and remove the less important planets: some, like Xenon, were important in the series and should remain, but others were only briefly mentioned - "Wanta - The next planet, after Helotrix, on a list of worlds to come under Federation control through Sleer's Pacification Programme" sounds far too trivial. Blake's 7 is a well-known and very cultish show in the UK, subject of more than one book (as already mentioned) and plenty of other content - History of Blake's 7 contains sourced information about some planets. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this really is excessive, and sourced only to the work of fiction itself. Reyk _YO! 05:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, there seem to be sources, tho I m not sure how independent they are. Second, this is essentially acombination article and a much better idea than having separate ones on the planets. It's a type of article that should be encouraged, not deleted, in order to prevent fragmentation of this material from going too far. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are referencing the episodes of the show itself, and as such do not establish notability. Also, deleting this article will not cause separate articles about the individual planets. That is a silly notion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:43, 8 November 2013 (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.