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 redirect to Space: 1999. Sandstein 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Location for the tv series Space: 1999. Not independently notable. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT material, that belongs on a fan wiki. All we need is a disambig page for Moonbase_Alpha, with a brief mention of the location for the show, and that's it. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete ridiculous depth of fancruft for a two-season show. Reywas92 ^Talk 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:FANCRUFT is an essay with no standing, not a policy-based reason to delete. The nomination makes suggestions for development of the topic and deletion would neither be necessary nor appropriate to do this. Our actual policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. while WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP tell us that AfD is not a place to bring editing suggestions. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Andrew D, let's try it this way. Where is the WP:GNG? The article cites only a couple newspaper articles in addition to episodes of the show. Are there GNG sources? Please identify them. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Space: 1999 with very limited merge. The article is almost entirely in-universe description, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia per MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE bullet #1. The only salvageable out-of-universe encyclopaedic content is the description of Asimov's criticism of the show's use of dark side of the moon. This can easily be merged to the already existing discussion of Asimov's scientific criticisms in the main article. Spinning Spark 20:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep One independent reference is there to point the way to GNG. There also does seem to be enough non-primary sourcing to write an article. However most of that is written by the writers of the series, so it is not helping out GNG. A merge is not really appropriate as the target article is already big, and if this content was there it should be slit off into this article. Moonbase Alpha from NASA is probably a different thing. Other independent reference do exist like http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umext.html and https://medium.com/swlh/the-interior-design-of-moonbase-alpha-9c0d96119be9 which could also be counted as reliable. So it looks as if WP:GNG can be met by adding references and removing some in-episode OR material. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

If you find a few sources, then that's just the first step. What you'd do is to add this to the main article on the show, then if that gets so huge because there's so many sources, then you make a new page. The location is not really notable independently of the show. So of course you'll find something, because sources on the show are likely gonna talk at least a little bit about the location of the show. But that's not enough to justify an entirely independent article. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Neither of the sources you put forward is acceptable as a RS. The first is a fanboy site with entirely in-universe material, so no use for building an encyclopaedia article in any case. The second appears to be a social media site for designers. Whether that is an acceptable RS depends on whether the author, Federico Bo, gets a pass under WP:SPS as a recognised expert. I don't see any evidence that he is, he seems mostly involved with pushing blockchain currencies. His claims on the Italian designers involved in the Moonbase interior could be entirely his own speculation.

And good God no, I am not proposing a merge of the article in its entirety. As I said above, the only thing worth merging is a sentence or so on Asimov. The rest is in-universe description and should be dumped. My argument for removing the article is not based on its sourcing or notability, it is based on the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and in-universe articles definitely come under "not". If you think you can construct a proper encyclopaedic article you are welcome to do so, but this is not it and has to go. Spinning Spark 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Asimov's reception is pretty valid, and that would go into a sentence or two in the reception for the page on the show itself. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to the Space: 1999 article as a valid search term. Super Mario Man ( Talk) 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Are all these Space 1999 AfDs occurring because of the recent 30th anniversary release of the series? StrayBolt ( talk) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Correction: I accidentally combined this DVD Retro Release Notice with this Blu-ray Release, both posted within 2 hours of each other on April 11, 2019. StrayBolt ( talk) 08:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt ( talk) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect Quite a load of cruft for some minor show from the 1970s. User:SpinningSpark has it right. John M Wolfson ( talk) 16:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to the Space: 1999 article. There is no need for this fictional place in an old television program to have its own article. -- PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Space: 1999. Spinning Spark has done an excellent job above arguing for this position, and I agree entirely. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Space: 1999. Unless third-party, reliable sources can be located, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep As a prop it was is used right from the beginning, indeed it a central tenet of the whole program and that included the interior based shots and for a large section of British teenagers it was the business, so it has stand-alone notability. The article itself could be easily trimmed by 20% or more. The people who are voting for delete perhaps don't know the effect this show had when it was aired. The base itself was featured in kids and crafting magazines and it was always on show and in kits. scope_creep ^Talk 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G ( talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Main setting of a major series. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• The question is whether the subject is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Looking, I found that there are quite a lot of books and articles written about this television series, and there is a fair amount to say on the subject of its setting. Unfortunately, this article isn't saying it. Doing the research, I found books (ISBN 9780786455270 p. 93) explaining how the main set was difficult and expensive to light, so it was replaced with an alternative in the second season, with a purported in-universe explanation invented for having it that was never actually confirmed on-screen. Our article, in contrast, misrepresents fiction as fact. It provides that very in-universe explantion, sourced (as most of the article indeed is) to works of fiction, with nary a mention of the reality, which readers will not learn from Wikipedia. The fact, that I came across in another source (ISBN 9780786406005 p. 39), that one of the set props was later re-used in another U.K. science fiction series is entirely missing from our article. And so forth. There's possibly an article to be had here on the set designs and props, a sub-article of Space: 1999#Special effects, design and music about which the non-fiction sources indicate there is more for Wikipedia to say, but most of the content here in the article at hand is outright fiction, regurgitating stories and supplementary fictional works rather than giving readers factual information. Uncle G ( talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:FANCRUFT is not a WP:POLICY reason to bring an article to afd. This base was the main setting of a major series. The base was featured in piblications WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Notability is not derived, so it doesn't matter how major the series is. Sources will discuss the series, and discuss the setting somewhat, but the setting is not notable outside of the series. It does not have enough sources to pass GNG alone. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Space: 1999 per the well reasoned arguments put forward by SpinningSpark. This isn't a fan website and I myself have helped pare back cruft in entertainment topics I like despite the personal interest I have in them, which keep!voters here don't seem able to do. This topic clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own, and a one or two sentence merge of Asimov's criticism to the main article is the only salvageable piece of this article. Newshunter12 ( talk) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment The Death Star has an article and Mos Eisley (cantina) as well. Star Wars is certainly larger than life- however WP:FANCRUFT? WP:NOTPAPER so no reason to pare back IMO. WP:FANCRUFT is not a policy here at Wikipedia. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (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.