Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, based on consensus and because the article's WP:OR issues are not addressed in any depth here. Sandstein 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derelict (Alien)[edit]

The article fails WP:N in that it is about a fictional spaceship that only appears in 1 film (Alien, not counting a deleted scene in Aliens in which it also appears). In any case there is no secondary source material provided to support commentary about the subject as required by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Its only substantial reference for most of its content is the film itself, and most of the article is blatant original research with much of it written from an in-universe perspective. All the pertinent information about the ship's concept & design is already included in Alien (film) (and Aliens (film) to a lesser extent) using real-world context in relation to the making of the film. Redirection is unnecessary as few articles link to it, and those that do mostly do so only through a template (Template:Alien) so they would be easy to remove. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons above. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote is not required, since you made the nomination Fritzpoll (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elements of a plot that only appear in one film, or one episode of a television programme do not satisfy WP:FICTION Fritzpoll (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film charachter that is non notable. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as this is a key location in the series timeline, whether or not the footage actually appeared in the theatrical release of all the films or not, and central to discussions about who the aliens really are and whether the facehuggers and the space jockey are the same species (some believe the space jockey and the derelict were, like the Nostromo, overcome by the aliens). In other words, this should be sourceable per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I don't believe those subjects are discussable in the encyclopedia, as they don't appear to be discussed in secondary source material. What you're suggesting is basically fan synthesis, fanfiction, and a lot of in-universe stuff which is pretty much what we're trying to avoid by deleting this article. My interpretation of WP:FICT leads to the conclusion that the stuff you're suggesting probably isn't sourceable to reliable third-party sources, and is the kind of content that WP:FICT is designed to restrict/fix rather than expand. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such material can be sourced from the work of fiction itself. And I notice section 5 on real world aspects. DGG (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, the real-world aspects are already presented in Alien (film), and is merely re-presented in this article with nothing additional to it. Material cannot be sourced exclusively from the work of fiction itself, as this is the point of V, OR, and the guidlines RS and WAF. Please find a policy, guideline, or precedent to show that articles may be based solely on primary source material, particularly articles on elements of fictional works. I have never seen any such thing, in fact I have only seen the opposite. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be primary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not for this sort of material. Material on plot and the like is to be taken from the most reliable source, which is accepted as being the work, not a tv guide article on the work or something of the sort. Repeated theme of multiple discussions at RS noticeboard. DGG (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, plot summary info is of course best derived from the work itself. However, I am not speaking of using the work itself as a source for plot summary but rather as a source for original research, fan theory, and synthesis, which this article is full of. Per the policy of verifiability, Wikipedia requires that articles rely on reliable, third-party published sources, which this article does not. This article makes a number of claims and advances a number of (possible) theses explaining the origins/structure/fate/etc. of the fictional craft, without attributing any of these ideas to any third-party source. This is the definition of original research. If the only information in this article that can reasonably be attributed to a source is the plot summary info (attributed to the film itself), then the article also fails WP:NOT#PLOT and therefore fails 3 out of 4 of our core article standards policies (the 4th being BLP, which doesn't even apply here). If we removed all the OR and unsourced statements from this article all we'd be left with is a bit of plot summary which is already fully detailed in the main article Alien (film). It might be possible to source things in the "concept and design" section using "making of" featurettes and other primary sources, but they are already so sourced and thoroughly covered in the film article and do not amount to enough content for a stand-alone article, especially one lacking any third-party sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable setting of a fictional universe which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Additionally, I find the nom's analysis of the content in the film articles themselves to be solid, so there is really no reason to merge. Unlikely search term so redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable element of a fictional universe covered in reliable primary and secondary sources. Likely search term. No reason to delete. Consistent with specialized encyclopedia as covered by our first pillar. Verfiable and not original research as it does not advance a thesis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR is not limited only to articles which advance a thesis. Per the policy: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Note the and, meaning that OR is not just stuff that advances a position but includes any speculation or ideas that are previously unpublished. Read the article, it is full of this kind of stuff. For example it outright states "The origin of the Derelict and its inhabitant, the Space Jockey, is not depicted and virtually nothing is ever said about either throughout the entire Alien series." Yet it goes on to make theories about it being a bioship, its fictional origins, structure, fate after the films, etc. The only verifiable section, "concept and design", contains only information already presented in Alien (film) and is not sufficient to support an independent article as it amounts to only 2 shorrt paragraphs and does not include any references to secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think checking through back issues of such magazines as Starlog (I actually recall reading one several years back that had information on the Derelict from Alien), which might take longer than a five day AfD (but we have no deadline, so there's no rush or urgency to delete anyway) would turn up stuff. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:29, 16 May 2008 (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.