Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies (3rd nomination)
Enough already. This is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" except in the minds of those wanting to delete this article, who pick the most vague wording of any policy in order to justify elevating personal opinion to the status of policy. Descriptive information about fictional elements sourced to fictional works do not violate any Wikipedia policy (especially not |verifiability, |original research, or , the classic core "non-negotiable" policies—other policies and guidelines can be |ignored when consensus deems them inapplicable). There is strong |consensus among ''editors'' (as opposed to the |systemically biased claimed "consensus" among those who participate in AfD or rewrite policy pages to shape Wikipedia into their own personal vision of what it should be) that these articles should exist. The most reliable source for any fictional item is the work of fiction itself, claims of no reliable sources are unfounded. No one believes this list should contain every fictional company or station that ever existed; limiting the lists to those which are significant elements of notable works of fiction would be a reasonable inclusion criteria. The entire |notablity of fiction guideline is currently under dispute because it is attempting to push the minority views of those arguing to delete here, which do ''not'' in any way, shape, or form represent the consensus of Wikipedians who write articles on fictional topics. Further, any remaining perceived |problems with the articles can be fixed, by trimming, merging, editing to provide more context, adding sources, etc. Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors because they don't fit your particular vision of what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is a community project to build an encyclopedia, a "encyclopedia|comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"; driving away people because they write about things you are not interested in is detrimental to the most fundamental goals of this project. Aggressive deletion campaigns drive away many editors who are acting in good faith and they are a horrible way to achieve "consensus
— User:DHowell, 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:IAR||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:BIAS||WP:FICT||WP:PROBLEM (Wikipedia:Verifiability)