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. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of Eve Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I play EVE, but something akin to this article already exists over at http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Ships. Given that this is purely in-universe stuff with little if any outside notability, I think this page should be deleted and a reference pointing people to the EVEWiki link included in the article's main page. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tend to agree with TallNapoleon's reasoning. While the article's information is correct and while it may help some readers, this kind of ship listing is not necessary to fully understand the topic Eve Online. Both the Eve Online and the Gameplay of Eve Online articles have sufficient details about ships. I think deleting this article doesn't take anything away that's required for readers to "get" Eve.
-- Aexus (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SMERGE to Gameplay of Eve Online. WP:VGSCOPE is a good metric for this: items and objects in video games are usually not subject of enough critical commentary to be good encyclopedia subjects. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikia - It may be accurate, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SharkD (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer keeping, because it's a well-written article on a subject matter that is notable. It's niche, and if articles like it have been deleted in the past I won't raise a huge stink, but I don't see any need for it to be deleted. If it is deleted though, be sure to replace it with a link to one of the Eve-specific wikis, so that the information isn't lost off Wikipedia. Alsadius (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and SharkD; it belongs on an Eve Online-specific Wiki, not Wikipedia.  Xihr  00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Couldn't you say that about any article more or less, that you can find the information elsewhere other than wikipedia? Accumet8000 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem is that this article lacks real world notability, and is very, very similar to the one I provided. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we agree Eve Online is a notable encyclopedic subject, information about its mechanics is also important. Both Eve Online and Gameplay of Eve Online are already quite large; even a selective merge of this data would unfocus and unbalance. At present the AFD is focused, balanced, and is a subtopic in an obviously notable larger one, with sources apparently available if poorly used. Estemi (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it's notable neither means everything about it is also notable, nor does it mean that everything about it is encyclopedic.  Xihr  07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A larger point is that there is no need for us to reinvent the wheel, as we can just link to the eve-wiki page from the mechanics section. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. A game-specific Wiki is far better suited to this sort of thing.  Xihr  05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's gameguide cruft and provides little useful encyclopedic information to readers. SharkD (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This stuff does not belong on Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep that it is covered elsewhere does not mean it is unsuitable for coverage here. I would expect most notable subject to be covered elsewhere--and I would hope that a fan wiki would cover it in a good deal more detail--I would expect an article on e3ach individual ship. The amount here is arguably appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - excessive fictional information per WP:WAF, and no indication that this is subject is notable independently from the game. The ships can be briefly discussed in the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2009 (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.