Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise (2nd nomination)

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 Keep - Many involved in this debate need to have a good cup of tea and relax. This sequence of debates has been most dramatic but the consensus is clear - Peripitus (Talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise

AfDs for this article:

• • Articles for deletion/Human suit
• • Articles for deletion/Human disguise
  • Articles for deletion/Human disguise (2nd nomination)

Human disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article has been subject to two AfDs, both which resulted in delete (although the second was closed as no consensus, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise gives a clear summary. The article has no references from WP:RS that establish WP:NOTABILITY of the concept, and is merely a mostly WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PRIMARY sourced collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This article violates several core policies, and was incorrectly and abusively created as a cut-and-paste duplicate during the first AfD against the community consensus clearly established. The article is now longer, but still fails to meet even our most basic criteria. It is at best a list of OR WP:TRIVIA. Verbal chat 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• IAR Keep and nominator trout-slap You have GOT to be kidding me. The DRV for this article just closed TODAY. Why in the green hells do you want to re-start this drama? And don't give me the blah blah blah policy arguments. With as much drama as this article has created, you will NEVER get a consensus with this AFD, and quite frankly all the opening of a new AFD amounts to is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please strike this drama invoking and bad faith response. Verbal chat 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. Get over it. My post isn't an accusation of bad faith, its my way of saying Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Having this article around will NOT kill wikipedia, and consistantly putting it up to afd simply amounts to listing it till it gets deleted. I honestly don't get the vehemence behind wanting this article deleted, I just know that I am sick to death of the constant complaining about it. Leave it alone. Come back in month, or two, or six, and look at it with fresh eyes. Until then, all I can say is ENOUGH ALREADY. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that it won't kill Wikipedia, but it may CREATE something inadvertently. Try googling for "Motif of harmful sensation" and see what an OR article with two years of existence can do. - BalthCat (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to persuade me, using a slippery slope argument isn't exactly going to help. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm trying to point to an example of what's at the bottom of the slippery slope. I'm not inventing alarmist possible results because I don't want the article to exist, I'm just cautious as a result of what I've seen happen. Consensus in 2006 or 2007 or whichever (on the talk page?) was that the topic (motif of harmful sensation) was obviously notable, and that it MUST have been researched as a cross-cultural phenomena, and that Wikipedia simply had to find out what the proper name of the motif/theme was. Two years later there's 96,000 google hits [1], and blogs are using Wikipedia's term for the phenomenon. There's actually at least one not-yet-published scholarly paper that uses the term now. Give it a few years and the Wikipedia-created expression may come home to roost with proper sources (that don't reference Wikipedia). I don't really mind, on one level, but if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is not supposed to be doing this. - BalthCat (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that if Verbal doesn't get to run continuous AfDs on an article the name of which is two common words, in a common configuration, and the subject of which is a common concept, then in a week or two googling for those common words will return results some of which are relating to that common concept? Artw (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh Noezzz! It's already too late!!! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is obviously what I am saying. (Don't try for anything reasonable or anything.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Primarily I think this AfD is premature, as the prior AfD closed on Nov 4 as no consensus and it seems very very unlikely that consensus one way or another can be divined at this point in time. Also DRV closed only today.Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_4. On matters of policies behind this article I'm a weak keep.--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate on those matters of policy, else your vote will be discounted by the closing admin. If you could rebut the points in the nomination or improve the article to address those issues, that would also be great. Verbal chat 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Verbal, i think too much has been typed already on this article, I'll let the closing admin think what they want.--Milowent (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep — Notable topic, reliably sourced and heavily referenced to multiple cultures and time periods sharing the theme. The article would be further along without the deletions, so right now deletion seems like a self-justifying problem/solution. Try just leaving the article-builders unmolested for a month, and then decide whether it's worth keeping! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please provide a few WP:RS that contain significant discussion of this concept (per WP:GNG). The last two AfDs failed to find any, and nor does the article contain any. Verbal chat 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You're saying none of these (Human disguise#References) are WP:RS on Human disguise??? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • ... that contain significant discussion of this concept (per WP:GNG)Verbal chat 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You're saying that not even "Divine Disguisings" and "The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad" contain significant discussion of the concept of non-human beings (like gods) disguising themselves as human beings? Well, the problem is... that's exactly what they're about. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
          • All of the sources discuss various entities taking on human disguises, and even the concept of doing so; however, none of them (as far as I can see, and I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong) can validate the notability of the term "human disguise" itself. I would contend that this article simply lumps together notable instances in literature and myth of entities concealing themselves by posing as human and refers to them as "human disguise" - surely a synthesis of material that is effectively original research? The concept of a human disguise is not notable. It simply isn't. Individual instances (Clark Kent, etc) are notable, but not the overall concept. If Wikipedia starts allowing these non-notable phrases, there will be an explosion of flimsy articles. A similar example would be "teen sensation". That's a well-known, often-used phrase that is utterly without note. It is easily more popular and common than "human disguise", but quite rightly doesn't have an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, I see. For instance, here a source is clearly and repeatedly using that phrase with that meaning, as an example of how we use it in this article, and I would have thought that was okay, but you're saying no, because the author's merely using the term, not turning about and holding a meta-discussion about the term to establish the term's notability; he's more interested in the concept it's being used to help communicate, the bit about angels coming among humanity. So as far as you're concerned, that whole source is a wash. And likewise every other source in that list is a wash for you, because they're using words to convey ideas, instead of having meta-discussions about the words they're using. I am so sorry for you, but I don't think the problem is with the articles. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Well I cannot see that page, for some reason; however, assuming everything you said is true I would have to say that it simply supports my position that the sources are not adequate for establishing the notability of the term. Consider the difference between "human disguise" (not notable) and something like "human shield" (very notable). The sources for the latter are very much the sort of thing you would expect in a Wikipedia article, but in the "human disguise" article they are more tangential. Anyway, thank you for the subtle dig at the end of your comment which effectively invalidated your whole argument at a stroke. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How witty of you to write as though that ultimate refusal had ever, at any point, been in doubt.

"human shield" = very notable (at 807 book hits)

"human disguise" = not notable (at 678 book hits)

That's the scale we're working on, is it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those nice, misleading Google numbers. Here are some of my own:

• "human shield" = very notable (at 10,900 news hits)
• "human disguise" = not notable (at 166 news hits)
• "human shield" = very notable (at 260,000 web hits)
• "human disguise" = not notable (at 129,000 web hits)

Do you see how pointless it is to use "hits" as guidelines for notability? The argument is about whether or not the subject is notable (which it isn't). I must also note that the majority of "keeps" (and all the yelling, screaming, trouting and other nonsense) seem to be complaints about the nominating procedure, rather than comments about the validity of the article. All that stuff should be moved to the talk page, where it belongs. This page is for discussing the validity of the article, not the validity of the nomination procedure. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

«Do you see how pointless it is to use "hits" as guidelines for notability?» Dunno... you seem to think 807 book hits are very notable, while 678 book hits are not at all; 260K web hits are very notable, while 129K web hits are not at all; exactly where between the points do you draw the line? And who else agrees with you? Is this a rule you just came up with for this particular occasion? In short, why should I pay it any heed whatsoever? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you are missing my point. Let me be more explicit. Notability is not based on how many Google hits (in any flavor) a subject has. At best, those numbers are a guide - normally they are completely misleading and largely useless. Notability is established by the quality, specificity and number of available reliable sources after considered interpretation. It is painfully clear that however lucid and accurate my argument will be, you will invent some new way of refute it in order to protect this garbage article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - for the same reason I would delete "Red car" or "Green grass", etc. Seems like an indiscriminate collection of examples, many of which would be more suitable to the significantly-more encyclopedic secret identity, alter ego, persona et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - Disruptive editor seeking to maximize drama and utterly failing to work constructively with others. Artw (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please withdraw that bad faith accusation, which isn't a valid keep or close reason. Doing the same thing and expecting the same results (delete) isn't disruptive. Verbal chat 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There are, frankly, very few forums you could take it to that I am not considering taking you to right now. I suggest you self close and stop this destructive behavior. Artw (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Same results" honestly would be "no consensus", which should = "keep" according to policy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Please cool down, the point of this AfD is to establish consensus. The last one generated confusion, the first was clear delete. I was clear in my nomination to avoid the confusion of the previous AfD. Let's see if this AfD comes to a different conclusion than all those before it. The intention isn't drama, and drama will be minimised if people keep to the point and confine themselves to policy based reasoning, for or against, keeping this article. After this AfD we will hopefully know better how to proceed. The first AfD was a clear delete, and the second was open to interpretation, but the talk page shows a compelling reason for it to be closed as delete. It was the unusual close that was overturned at DrV, not the AfD discussion. Please do not attempt to hijack this AfD and make it about anything other than the article and policy. Verbal chat 21:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, the DrV overturned the unusual close that deleted the article, not the "no consensus" verdict that by normal policy would have resulted in a keep result. Whereas you are trying to reinstate the delete and overturn the keep, in essence overturning the DrV the same day it took effect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would be willing to put this AfD on hold for a month if other editors genuinly feel they can address he issues raised in the nomination in that time. Verbal chat 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no issues. Most agreed the article was fine the way it is now. You are not going to get a consensus to delete it, no matter how many times you nominate it. Dream Focus 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There was one clear delete consensus and one that I believe was a policy consensus but was misclosed per the drv. Verbal chat 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a deletion review, and it ended. You had your chances to speak, and its over. [2] Stop being disruptive. Dream Focus 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you unilateral close this AfD, which you yourself seem to be conceding is mistimed and disruptive, without trying to set any "conditions", and hope that people take that into consideration when it is decided if further action against you is required. I have to say that at this point your pattern of behaviour suggests that a ban on your editing that article should be requested. Artw (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and close this disruptive nomination. We've already been through this, the situation dealt with today, there no reason to go through this yet again. Dream Focus 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please address any of the points raised or give a valid keep reason. Verbal chat 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I already did that last time. No one is going to waste time repeating the same arguments again. Just hit the link up top to the last debate, and read it. It was only a week ago, so nothing has changed since then. You are just wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Dream Focus 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and trout whack the nom for violating WP:POINT and climbing the Reichstag. Also suggest the nom study WP:STICK and WP:DEADLINE. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - As I indicated above, I think the article should be deleted. So evidently, it is not a waste of everyone's time. Having just gone back and reviewed all the previous AfD/DRV stuff (what an awful mess!), I conclude that this was more of a procedural relisting on Verbal's part; therefore, all the yelling, screaming and "trouting" about it is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep This version, though far from perfect, does not suffer from the systemic problems of it's predecessor. Simonm223 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Too soon since last AfD to start over again. Angryapathy (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep because we need to say enough already, because consensus doesn't change in 2 weeks, and the article has been fixed enough to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - nomination seems pointy to me. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Uber Ultra Omgz Strong Keep Please note closing Admin, per Xeno [3], this counts as four keep votes. Ikip (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ohh great ghu, now we're going to see !votes with super- and sub-indices, numerical or with symbols like ∞ and ℵ₀ and ℵ₁ [ha ha, my infinity trumps your infinity!] — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Completely legitimate subject in both classical mythology and modern fiction (e.g. television, film, literature, etc.). -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No proof this exists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

would someone help me find my jaw? i dropped it on the floor around here somewhere.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Article looks great. Lots of improvements on what was already a good well sourced article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uber Ultra Omgz Strong Whatever Anyone Else Said +1 I think that there is a possibility of a coherent article here, but don't see much chance of it emerging with this much unfocussed attention. The main question is whether the topic of 'non-human things disguising themselves as human' meets the minimum standards of notability. So far it seems not. And some of those quotations from the Bible definitely do not mention disguise, human or otherwise.   pablo_hablo. 23:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hebrews 13:2: "... some people have entertained angels without knowing it." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.   pablo_hablo. 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The secondary source gives the Hebrews quote as part of its analyses of the human disguise, so its fully legit to include it. Additionaly, viewed in context with the rest of the Holy Bible, the quote does imply Angels wear a human disguise, as its revealed in Revelations that their natural forms can be extremely inhuman in appearance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep with an admonishment to the nominator per WP:NOTAGAIN: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.". A renomination that ignores the consensus reached at DRV disregards the instructions set forth at WP:DEL. Perhaps if the nomiator had waited several months and was then able to make note of changes or lack thereof to the article, his nomination might have merit. But to return it to AFD with a rehashing of the same arguments from the 2-week-old deletion dicussion because of his diagreement with the consensus of the DRV keep, does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and, of course, trout for nom:

  

Whack! The WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis) is used to make subtle yet hopefully long-term adjustments to clue levels in experienced Wikipedians.

We are not here to wage battle or overwhelm opposition, we work with others to find the best ways to serve our readers. It took me all of thirty seconds to find hundreds of books utilizing this plot device, including few dozen about Jesus disguised as a human. This plot device has also been pioneered worldwide by the Star Trek franchises among dozens and possibly hundreds of other examples. Literary devices are perfectly appropriate encyclopedic subjects so what remains is finding the best ways to approach and write about the subject. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, no. Star Trek far more commonly had humans disguised as aliens than vice versa. Are we now going to have 'Inhuman disguise' created for its own example farm? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting the article: The various incarnations of Star Trek had numerous aliens capable of appearing to be human, e.g. the Salt Vampire of "The Man Trap", Trelane the Squire of Gothos, the Organians in "Errand of Mercy", the re-created historical combatants in "The Savage Curtain", among others from the original series [the article doesn't mention "Catspaw"]; the Changelings (Odo's people) in Deep Space Nine; and the Suliban in Enterprise. ... The various Star Treks also had persuasive androids, for instance in the original series episodes "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Shore Leave", "I, Mudd", and "Requiem for Methuselah". In Star Trek: the Next Generation, the android Data's desire to become more human was used as an ongoing source of commentary on the human condition. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete: example-farm and thus WP:IINFO. No WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the concept rather than individual examples, thus the article has only a tenuous structure constructed out of WP:Synthesis of these examples into a purported umbrella topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep in agreement with MichaelQSchmidt. -- allen四names 03:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article covers a recurring theme/device in literature and mythology that is notable and well-sourced. Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • How is notability established? Which criteria is met? Verbal chat 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this is an extremely rude renomination. Miami33139 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. The last AfD resulted in confusion, the first in delete. This is an attempt to end the confusion, but keep votes without any policy argument are not helping (the same for delete votes, yet they appear to be !votes). Verbal chat 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, why don't you assume good faith? This is a disruptive and POINT based nomination. I provided a humorous but referenced !vote on the AfD and then provided book based references to these claims at the DRV. Those are based in policy, and backed up by external sources to Joseph Campbell, a pre-eminent philosopher. You are dismissing sources out of hand because you have totally abandoned good faith and our rationales for keeping or deleting content. That is bad faith and disruptive. You are flogging a dead horse in public and you deserve the scorn that such poor behavior deserves. Miami33139 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I think you're being a little harsh, Miami. It's only semi-public back here, like flogging a dead horse back behind the store, in the alley, instead of in Main Street. The general readership doesn't usually stray back this far. Let's set our scornifiers at 2/3, all right? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not interested in rights or wrongs of nomination. Undoubtedly a significant plot-device across all manners of cultures, but the article is OR/synthesis and perhaps will always be so, as I'm far from convinced that either the dozens of sources cited or thousands that could be establish (or even mention) "human disguise" as the overarching abstract concept that this article seems to think it is. Unless someone can find some way of showing that Kenyatta being a "monster in human disguise", uncanny valley cyborgs, kitsune, etc. belong to the same class of thing, then I'd suggest userfying it as a prelude to splitting down into more homogenous articles on human disguise as a Sci-Fi trope, Olypian gods taking human form, etc., if such do not already exist. Declan Clam (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This looks dangerously like Motif of harmful sensation, which I once mistakenly defended on the principle that it "must exist, it just needs renaming." (And now the internet has started to use Wikipedia's term for it... full circle someday, perhaps...) - BalthCat (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A literary device that has been used throughout the recorded history of literature, mythology, and religion. The article itself is well referenced. The Westfahl references transcend merely the listing of examples, this quotes Voltaire discussing the concept used in the context of pagan deities, Judaism, and Christianity. The nom has questioned the WP:N of the subject; the Voltaire bit alone should establish notability. As to the other claims of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; these are the result of there being so many examples of this device mixed with the eagerness of Wikipedians to add to story. Combining that with the need to "defend" the article from repeated attempts at deletion; has led to the long list of examples, some of which do go beyond the scope of what this article should be; I'm sorry but the Trix Rabbit? The article's lead, which doesn't contain WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH is enough for my Keep !vote; the rest of it enhances the article, puts it into fantastic historical perspective, and more fully elucidates the point. I would also like to point out the lack of assumption of good faith and the excessive badgering by both sides of this debate. Everyone who has voiced an opinion on this page has done so because they believe they are making Wikipedia better and their opinion should be respected whether you agree with it or not. Other than that I have no strong opinions on this matter. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Erm... the article lead is original research. None of its references contain the phrase "human disguise". It's well-written to sound nice and encyclopedic, but ultimately it is still just synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Erm... considering that a lede normally has no references at all, it's pretty darn significant that the only two references that did get cited there are already directly quoted as saying: "Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human."   "Stories of secret identities have roots in ancient mythologies as disguised deities frequently descended to walk among mortals."   Those aren't using the phrase "human disguise", but they're clearly referring to the same referent. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi. I reject your rerasoning on both counts - those both quite clearly discuss the concept, whether or not you got a result when searching for the string "human disguise". I suggest you try again using human parsing. you might have some ground to stand on if this were a WP:NEO discussion, but it is not. Artw (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • So the problem is the title? The two words together are not in the Westfahl references but the concept certainly is. The Voltair references does use the words together here but I don't think that invalidates Westfahl. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per beating a dead horse. Seriously now just as an AfD ends, we go to DRV, just as that ends we go to AfD again. Is this some kind of game or something? Imagine if all this time nominating and renominating articles was put into article work instead... And yes, the concept itself is pretty notable. For example, check out the remake of V on Tuesdays on ABC to see a famous example. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody is disputing the existence of the concept of a "human disguise", just as nobody would dispute the existence of a "tall tree". The point here is that it isn't a notable concept, and there has not been significant discussion of "human disguise" in reliable sources. And once again, I must state that it is inappropriate to discuss the nomination procedure in the AfD discussion. The closing admin should discount all "keeps" that are based on a perceived flaw in the nomination procedure and consider only the comments that concern the validity of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It is a notable concept by the common sense standard, again, just watch V on Tuesday. The article is valid by itself, even without the nomination error. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We don't make Wikipedia articles based on what is common sense or "obvious". They are made on the basis of their notability in reliable sources. This article does not meet that standard. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Based on the reliable sources that demonstrate notability in the article and discussed across these many discussions, the articles meets our standards of inclusion. Per WP:PRESERVE, I see no pressing need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
          • That is not factually accurate. The individual examples are well referenced (and in some cases, notable), but the overall concept is neither well-referenced nor notable. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
            • The facts are that the subject is verifiable and notable by any reasonable standard. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Please verify it then. Tell me where the term "human disguise" comes from. Who first said it or wrote it? Or at the very least, in what century did the term first appear? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Why repeat what others have already said across two rather lengthy discussions? This thread is beginning to feel like that "Hello, Goodbye" song by The Beatles. We should not have to do research for others and then repeat it multiple times. I am persuaded the subject is worthy of inclusion. I am not going to be persuaded otherwise. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
                • The article is not about the term "human disguise"; it is, as the lede says, about the concept so indicated. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It seems to be accepted at DRV to say that DRV is not AfD take 2. I will therefore say, AfD 3 is not AfD 2 instant take 3. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not a valid reason for a keep. Please !vote on the validity of the article, not the validity of the nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • With respects, Scjessey... questioning the motives behind an editor's speedy renomination of an article is perfectly valid. That the someone does not agree with their findings of the second AfD or the DRV is exacly why revisiting concerns of those discussions would have best waited waited several months, rather than several days... allowing it per WP:WIP to be improved in the interim, and showing good faith that others might continuing it in the meantime. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • But that does not change the fact that a !vote of "keep" is invalid if it is based on the procedure, rather than the article. And frankly, the talk page is surely more appropriate for meta discussion about procedure in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • • Are you making the assumption that the AfD exists in some kind of perfect, context free void? Not even Verbal makes that assumption – you’ll notice he links back to DoriSmiths misleading and extremely misjudged (not to mention insulting) “reinterpretation” of the last AfD. In fact every step of the way he has made every effort to make his deletion efforts tie into some perceived previous slight. If he had drawn a line under it, waited a while and then started a new AfD purely on the strengths or weaknesses of the article then I would have no problem with it . As it is ,y reasons for keeping and expanding this article hacve been given in the previous AfD, on the talk page of the article. My work in expanding the article is in it’s history. I do not feel the need to recap them for a spurious 0-day AfD based on a grudge. Artw (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I was not involved in any of the previous procedures. I came to this AfD "fresh" while working my way through a list of AfD discussions, and found the article to be about a non-notable subject. AfD discussions, however conceived, should be on merit. They should discuss the validity of the article, not argue about how the nomination procedure was "based on a grudge" (a bad faith characterization that isn't appropriate in an AfD discussion). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
            • there's assuming good faith, and then there is denying the utterly obvious. Artw (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
            • However, a number of your comments suggest a misconception that the article is about the phrase "human disguise" rather than about the concept so denoted. You've demanded verification of the phrase as verification of the subject of the article — which the phrase is not — and you've complained of absence of the phrase from references, as though that meant anything at all. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

              And here's a reprise from the article's talk page:     :«but not the actual term that is the subject of this article» — This is your fundamental misunderstanding, Scjessey. The subject of this article is not "the actual term" "human disguise", but the concept so denoted. As long as you're only looking for and at "the actual term", you're looking for and at the wrong thing. That's not what we've been discussing here, not at all. We could have used terms like "man-like masquerades", "human guises", "counterfeit humanity", "shapeshifts into human semblance", "taking human form", "taking human shape", and meant the same thing by them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

              • And here is a reprise of my response to your misunderstanding of my thought process:

                It fails in either regard. The concept, while it exists, is not notable. In this article, an attempt has been made to establish notability by piling a huge stack of individual, distinct-from-one-another examples with associated references. That's synthesis. Whatever term you use, the concept is still not notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

                • Oh, right, piling individual piddling little non-notable references nobody ever heard of, like the Bible and the Iliad and the Terminator movies and the recent remake of Battlestar Galactica with the humanoid Cylons and the current remake of V that nobody's watching.... they're all not notable just because you few say so, Scjessey, the people making and watching these shows don't understand how boring and non-notable this theme really is, they seem to think there's some deep emotional and almost mythical impact being delivered here.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • • Oddly enough, I am watching the remake of V, although I suppose as I am "A Nobody", it is still correct to say that A "Nobody is watching it".  ;) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reasons this entry was already deleted -- it violates WP:NOR, specifically by synthesizing information that has not been discussed by any secondary or tertiary reliable sources as part of a coherent and notable topic. It is frustrating to see so many people voting keep repeatedly for an entry that doesn't satisfy one of our most basic requirements. It implies a serious lack of understanding of core principles regarding what constitutes original research, and how to properly use reliable sources. Frightening to think what the encyclopedia will turn into should this faulty reasoning continue to spread through the editorial population. Is there a vaccine for this?PelleSmith (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly not. Perhaps after a decent health care reform bill has been passed? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Pelle, lets be clear that this article is a different beast to the one that was deleted. Human disguise is much broader than Human Suit. A suit is something you put on, the disguises in our new article include examples where the creatures transform their outer form - an act fundamentally different from donning a suit!

Secondly there seems to be a misunderstanding of policy. Lets try and break it down. The position on Synth is contained in a nut shell in the first sentence of the policy doc you linked to.

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Its important to understand that to count as synth, an article has to violate both clauses at once. Granted this article combines material from multiple sources - but thats what encyclopedia articles are all about. What we dont do is make any original conclusions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It really pains me to see these arguments. Given the fact that no sources exist discussing this as a cohesive subject matter there are only two options to explain what is going on at the entry: 1) It is a violation of WP:SYNTH because editors are in fact implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and if they are not doing so then 2) the entry is violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because consists of an unrelated jumble of stuff. In my view, and the view of many others who are capable of seeing this very basic dilemma a mix of both is going on. Either way, without solid secondary or tertiary sources discussing a topic covering the scope of the entry, I'm sorry, but it clearly violates policy and I remain extremely disheartened about future of this project if so many people are failing to understand this since it is such an obvious violation of a very core principle of Wikipedia.PelleSmith (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this discussion is causing you pain Pelle, I hope this reply will help set your mind at rest! The key point to understand with reference to both alternatives you raise is that the articles scope is given by the title and clarified in the lede. As suspected it looks like you feel the article violates synth by being wider in scope than any one of the sources. This is not what our policy on synth is designed to prevent – whats prohibited is drawing original conclusions by synthetically combining information from more than one source. The mere act of collating information from different sources does not involve creating any new conclusions. An example might help. About a year ago there was lot of popular interest in Credit Default Swap, so I helped improve that article and add some clarity for the layman. Some of the themes we covered were The creation and history of the CDS - Its role in specific incidents such as the collapse of Bear Sterns - The mathematics of Swap Finance - Progress in improving regulation on CDS - Criticisms of CDS - The different types of CDS Etc etc Now to the best of my knowledge,none of the sources cover all of these themes. Many just address one, or at most two or three. Are we guilty of synth as just by addressing the different aspects of the subject more comprehensively than anyone one source we're making an original conclusion that a subject exists with a scope not acknowledged by sources? Should we instead split the article into separate subjects to avoid this, regardless of how inconvenient it would be for the reader? I dont think so! Moving on to your alternative 2) the articles talk page clearly shows that far from indiscriminately including every human like creature that comes to mind, the good editors building the article are carefully considering each on merit, and rejecting humanoids that dont belong, such as zombies. There currently seems to be an exhaustive source based discussion on whether or not to include werewolves. I hope if you read it you'll be satisfied that all due rigour is being excercised to ensure a quality article for our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No source ever deals with every detail of any topic, and to suggest that this is the standard by which I judge something not to be a violation of WP:SYNTH is a straw man of epic proportions. What the sources at Credit default swap directly relate to is a coherent subject matter recognized as such either explicitly on implicitly by the sources themselves. How is that? Because there are reliable sources available that define and/or describe what a credit default swap is. Each source does not have to encompass the totality of the subject, but some source must recognize that there is such a subject in the first place -- that there is a basis to group and compare examples within the same category. There are no such sources describing or defining the theme, trope, motif, or what have you, of "human disguise". And yes I'm still dismayed, more dismayed in fact, because the longer this goes on the more apparent it is that you all are deeply entrenched in a very problematic reading of WP:NOR and WP:V. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also add the the mere use of a term doesn't cut it either. The term "human disguise" consists of a noun (disguise) and an adjective (human) that modifies that noun. Infinite numbers of similar combination like "blue mountain", or "irritable cabdriver" are possible in English. Very few of these modified nouns actually merit an encyclopedia entry, and very many of the ones that don't are still exceedingly common in usage. The test isn't to find the number of times that a given term shows up in popular or academic contexts -- consider doing so for "blue mountain". Of course, most of the sources utilized in the entry don't even use this exact term in the first place -- and this has been noted in connection to the policy argument for deletion based on WP:N. In my opinion this fact is quite telling about the times that the term does appear, and it suggests (particularly without any sources that refer directly to a motif of "human disguise") that the appearance of the term is merely descriptive in the same way that "irritable cabdriver" is. That is to say that the modification of the noun is clearly meaningful but it has no purchase on anything beyond pure linguistic utility.PelleSmith (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is surely not only "pure linguistic utility" to note that the theme of gods disguising themselves as human beings exists, as we have references in the article noting; nor angels nor shapeshifting creatures of lesser stature (supernatural animals) nor aliens nor even machines. And Westfahl all by himself notes the disguised deities, aliens, and robots in the very first two cites. So the subject did clearly exist before we discussed it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, these are not examples in which "human disguise" (or a synonym thereof) is used in a manner denoting a similarity between the examples given in a particular source and others outside of the source beyond the very basic descriptive sense in which all of them involve something else disguised as a human (just as "irritable cabdriver" describes a cab driver who is irritable). The one thing no one arguing keep has been able to produce throughout these many AfDs is a source that connects these disparate examples in a meaningful way. There is a glimmer of hope that a very specific version of this dynamic is meaningful in this way within ancient Greek tragedy. But that is about it. The rest is a figment of your collective imaginations. Don't worry it is very plausible that the closing admin will take your words for it instead of investigating your various sources. Never fear, you are not alone amongst those who err.PelleSmith (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

«all of them involve something else disguised as a human» — A god, demon, monster, alien, robot, etc., yes. Precisely. Yes. That is the common factor. Something not human disguised as human. By George, I think you've got it! That is the topic of this article! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with PelleSmith and am concerned that no one has made any argument that reliable sources on this topic exist and just have not been cited yet, i.e. it is not just that it violates NOR, but it necessarily violates NOR. My bigger concern is that anything notable in the article seems to have a more proper home in anthropomorphism; this article seems to be at best about a subset of this larger theme in mythology and literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a lot of discussion of just that has taken place. And a lot of sourcing has been added to the article. My personal take is that the science fiction section is pretty strong now and could easily be it's own article, and that there is definitely work do be done on the discussion of the subject as a unified whole - but even there we have some sources and more sources can be added. For instance I'll be looking at the use of the Joseph Campbell cites in the lede.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why I originally voted keep on the first Human Disguise AfD, and why i consider that keep to still be standing . Disruption of that work would be the primary reason why I object to this 0-day AfD and why I believe it is completely non product compared with, say, backing down on the drama, allowing work to continue on the article undistributed and then reassessing it a later date. I'm sorry if this the reasons I believe this article should be kept are obscured by my objection to the disruption, but there they are. Artw (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said Artw. Slrubenstein, phrases like "it necessarily violates NOR" are high sounding but dont really impart much information. In order for this to be a productive discussion that helps us approach mutual agreement and true concensus, please can you spell out in detail specifically what you think the problem is here possibly quoting the relevant lines from policy and from the article. For example as I did in the reply to Pelle. If we dont take the time to make ourselves clear we'll just talk past each other and folk arent going to have the chance to improve as editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per our deletion policy which states, "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." and this is clearly a disruptive renomination of this sort. As for the article, it continues to improve and has excellent sources such as the multi-volume Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy which amply demonstrate the notability and unoriginality of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Only sources about related motifs or themes have been produced. These sources may discuss instances where this particular dynamic is apparent within another motif, or they may discuss motifs that are themselves much more specific (see related literature on Homer) but they never engage it as a motif itself. Can we dispense with the technicalities please. There is ample reason to call a great deal of what went on surrounding this entry disruptive, and a majority of it by "keepists", so lets focus on the entry itselfPelleSmith (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

• It is the same motif. There are naturally differences of scope or detail, as we are required to write our own article, not plagiarise the work of other authors, but there is no novel conclusion or thesis and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - to repeat what I said on the article's talk page: Nobody has been able to tell my why "human disguise" is notable. Only the notability of the examples has been demonstrated. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your argument has been repeatedly rebutted. It is not unusual for editors to disagree on matters such as this. Going round in circles in such cases is not helpful - it is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• I could make a stab at telling you why the concept is important in human thought, Scjessey, but as an actual explanation — rather than a citation — it would come from me and my own understanding, rather than another source. Are you interested? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Human thought"? Part of the reason why you wont see a topic with this scope discussed in academic contexts is precisely because it implies similar distinctions between the categories of "human" and "non-human", cross-culturally and historically. It is also implied that there is a unified significance to this particular dichotomy in the various folk traditions that it may appear, when there is no reason to believe there is. In reality you're just citing examples of times when the trope is apparent to a modern western mind socialized on science fiction an a particular idea of what it means to be human (what narcissism). Continue to believe that it has the same universal significance that you think it does, but you'll not find support from scholars who know better.PelleSmith (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First, you mistake my ethnicity. Second, if I'd intended to give a unified Western academic interpretation, then there would have been plenty of citations handy. Third, consider tinyurl.com/sizzleflambe — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is moot, since the person to whom I made the offer has "checked out". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with intentions or ethnicity. When you figure it out get back to me, until then carry on. BTW, do you think a zombie fits this motif, or maybe a zombie is like a human disguised as an android having technical difficulties. I'm going with that.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider the varying backstory of Swamp Thing which in one rendition is a shambling dead man, but in another is a plant-entity that only thinks it's the body of a man, and therefore holds that shape. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what's going to make discussions of inclusion criterea a lot cleaner and simpler? Not fighting an AfD for at least a solid 24 hours, something that I do not believe has happened during the articles existence. Artw (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Notability is easily demonstrated by the high quality secondary sources which dont merely mention the human disguise in passing, but analyses it in detail - e.g. the Professor Kreeft source on Angels. The fact that our article is wider in scope than any of the current sources doesn't make in synthetic. The article doesnt seem to be reaching beyond the sources to make any original conclusions . Its part of an encyclopedias function to collate different secondary sources, so naturally in some cases our articles will have the broadest scope. And this is a good thing not a bad thing – likely one of the reason why reliable sources praise this noble project for sometimes having the best available article on certain topics. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:BEFORE, WP:STICK, WP:POINT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:FICTION (in the proposed notability guideline regarding fictional topics under its "other criteria" for what should pass the General Notability Guidelines it states:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, [which it is] that the required sources are likely to exist [which they do] - The fictional element has established a tradition in a particular genre [which it is]) emphases and commentary added.

If I missed any allcaps bluelinks that will support my case, let me know I will add them. Based on the previous AfD, and the DRV there was no consensus, there is likely to be no consensus on this, so how about we get back to doing constructive things, like writing articles. Re-debating this subject's notability is getting to be counter productive, especially when people with different interpretations of the same policies/guidelines are involved, and no one is changing their position. That to me is the definition of no consensus. --kelapstick (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it has descended to the point were a few fanatical maintainers of this article are going to argue against every point raised that has already demonstrated the complete lack of notability of this list of disparate human disguises you call an article. Now that "The Court" is here en masse, I shall be checking out of this ridiculous and gross abuse of policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so firmly assuming good faith. Mind the door on your way out. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Same as last AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Thwack, thwack. Nope, still no whinny—this horse is dead.

  By now, it's been well and truly established that there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. I take a very dim view of repeating the nomination again and again, in the hope that one day the keepers will fail to turn up so the material might be deleted out of sheer persistence. See WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that has been established at all. What has been established is that most of the "keep" !votes come from either (a) a small group of like-minded individuals who spend most of their time apparently creating and defending articles of dubious notability ("The Court"), and (b) the !voters who object to the re-nomination on procedural grounds. In stark contrast, most of the "delete" !votes are based on sound policy reasoning. The closing administrator must consider these matters before wrapping this up, because it sheds a completely different light on the AfD discussion. I agree the nomination was procedurally out of order, but I did not participate in any of the previous discussions and came at this fresh (as did most of the other people who !voted for deletion). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we're playing that game are we? Okay, in that case I've arbitarily decided that your votes doesn't count, since the reasoning for it has been shown to be false and I don't care for any of your rebuttals of that. Sorry about that. Artw (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that objection, Scjessey, but I would reply that in a collaborative encyclopaedia that depends on good faith users' contributions, FairProcess is vital. The people who write the articles need to know that they'll get a fair hearing within the rules, and that the hearing will end with closure one way or the other. This fact is what enables them to write material without going through a committee process first.

Sometimes I disagree with the results of process, and I'd buy into a better system if it was on offer, but I don't see one so I feel we have to accept the processes we have rather than try to circumvent them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - while the lead has good sources and could easilly be merged into another broader article - the remainder of the article has little to no value. The fact that the following sections have been rewritten to a better prose structure does not take away from the fact that it's original research and synth to link them all here. Everything but the lead remains to this day nothing but a magnet for trivia entries of loosely related examples. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whereas, by the same token, this AfD and the others before it have been attempts to drive away contributors by making them afraid their efforts would all be deleted. If the article were left unmolested for awhile, then more work could get done there instead of here.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's pretty laughable. I don't think you have to worry about the article creators being afraid. Hundreds of new articles are deleted within minutes of their creation as a matter of routine, and this has already had several fair hearings and plenty of opportunity to be improved upon. Unfortunately, no amount of fettling will fix this article because the problem lies with the premise that it is okay to create articles about non-notable pairings of a noun and a qualifying adjective (I refer to my "tall tree" example again). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• You still insist the article is about the phrase "human disguise" instead of about the concept. That wasn't even very funny the first time, Scjessey. And weren't you pretending to have "checked out"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, you misunderstand (although I've learned to expect nothing less). The concept remains original research. The creators and maintainers of the article essentially chose the term to describe the concept - the term was (to all intents and purposes) "invented" for this function. In fact, this "invention" came about because the previous attempt ("human suit") was a failure. I imagine if this also gets deleted, the same article will pop up again under the new title of "human concealment" or something similar. The concept certainly exists (as numerous examples have been found and cited), but the term used to describe this concept is an invention. Furthermore, it is not even a notable concept in itself. There is literally ZERO evidence to suggest that the concept is more notable than the concept of a "tall tree" (for example), with all references to the "human disguise" concept being anecdotal, insignificant or non-specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as "tall tree" is a meaningful description of a tree the top of which surpasses certain relative distance from the ground so is "human disguise" a meaningful description of something that enables a non-human entity to appear human. But this is pure linguistic utility and doesn't in anyway speak to the notability of human disguises, or to the notion that discussing them as a distinct category is at all meaningful. The mere existence of such "human disguises" in various story telling traditions, like the existence of "tall trees" in various forests (which I assure you there are plenty more of) does not give grounds for an encyclopedia entry. There has to be something meaningful about human disguises, as with tall trees, above and beyond the merely descriptive to make it a meaningful category of disguise, but that is not all. On Wikipedia there has to be reliable sourcing attesting to such a meaningful category. But I must sound like a broken record at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Because there was nothing memorable about those movie posters with a glowing red cyborg eye glaring from Arnold Schwarzenegger's partial face; nothing classically mythic about those Greek gods disguised as human beings; nothing to heed in that repeated theme of hiddenness in the Bible, God's ways being mysterious to man, Jesus coming like a thief in the night, some have had angels for guests unawares; nope, nothing to see here, folks, mind your own business, go on your way! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep sourcing is fine in the article. The article has no references from WP:RS that establish WP:NOTABILITY is clearly bogus as the article is well sourced. One can argue that the cites aren't entirely on topic, but the nom didn't do so (and I think they are fine). The other issues raised by the nom are in the "shades of gray" of policy (is this indiscriminate? I don't think so, etc.) In any case, it meets all of our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is about a clearly notable literary device (per user:Benjiboi and others), and while it isn't perfect deleting it wont improve it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't begrudge Verbal his nomination, this is a fine piece of Wikidrama. I thought the original Human suit article was a disaster, but the current article isn't setting off my WP:SYNTH alarm bells. The article is about the concept of an other disguising themselves as a human, and I think the sources giving plenty of support to the notability of the concept. Fences&Windows 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Except there is no such concept in any of the sources so how could they possibly give support to it? There are different concepts in these sources (from Greek gods pretending to be humans to Japanese strangers disguised as beggars). When these sources actually have something meaningful to say about, for example Greek gods, or Japanese strangers the entry mangles this entirely by shifting the focus off of the actual plot dynamic the sources' authors are focusing on and onto the sometimes entirely inconsequential fact that the "other" happens to be non-human while the group this other is trying to blend into is human. At other times tremendous liberties are taken with widely read stories, like those from the Hebrew Bible, in which any angel appearing amongst humans without being recognized is supposedly in "human disguise". These stories themselves never attest to the notion that the angels have to disguise their physical form. Then one or two cherry picked and poor quality sources are found that use the term "human disguise" or a synonym thereof, but no one thinks twice about what mainstream scholarship on these stories may directly claim or imply about this dynamic. Perhaps the only example used in the entry that can actually be sourced to a tradition of scholarship that has identified a meaningful motif of non-humans disguised as humans (relating to Homer, etc.) is itself made virtually meaningless by being lumped in with this other nonsense.PelleSmith (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

«there is no such concept in any of the sources» — There you have it, folks! When Greek gods disguise themselves as human beings; and when angels disguise themselves as human beings; and when demons disguise themselves as human beings; and when shape-shifting animals disguise themselves as human beings; and when extraterrestrial aliens disguise themselves as human beings; and when robots disguise themselves as human beings; there is absolutely no common concept shared by these scenarios such that they can be spoken of in the same terms — you have PelleSmith's word on it! A phrase like "human disguise" simply will not suffice! Or will it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment - Setting aside the interpretation of what this means to the discussion about WP:SYNTH I think a mistaken assumption perpetuated by the lead of the entry has to be clarified. The first sentence of the lead claims that human disguise is "a concept in computer science, fantasy, folklore, mythology, religion, literary tradition, iconography and science fiction" (emphasis and wikilinking choice mine). The idea that it is "a", or one, concept across these fields is patently false and clearly not supported by any source used in the entry -- those who doubt this should note that the most salient quotes from the sources used have been provided in most of them as support. Read them, you'll find nothing to support this claim, in fact the idea that it is "a" concept even within any of these fields is dubious at best and again not supported by any given sources. The reason I bring this up is that the language of the entry seems to have misled people at this AfD, such as Fences and Windows above, or else these people are using sloppy and inaccurate expressions. Either way I do not think anyone should be misled about this. The lead of the entry is making a very false claim. If it were to say that human disguises of various kinds can be identified in the literature of ... that would be a different matter. This distinction is not simply nitpicky either, it is quite meaningful to the objections that some of us have to the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• As you yourself pointed out, "all of them involve something else disguised as a human", something not human disguised as human, a shared root concept (phrase it as you will) that is notable, age-old, and wide-spread. That is the topic of this article, not the mere phrase "human disguise". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• You continue to totally miss the point about what we are saying. All these examples you keep quoting are fine and dandy, but nowhere is it said that they all fall under the single concept of "human disguise". That's just original research on the part of the article creators and maintainers. Argue all you want, but that fact will never change. If this article is kept, it will be because of a failure to understand how this violates basic policy. Worst still, it will set a precedent for the creation of all sorts of bullshit meaningless articles about nebulous, non-notable concepts. It is because of that fact that I returned to this AfD after previous removing it from my watchlist - I realized that this will be an important "line in the sand" issue with articles in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Even PelleSmith observed that "all of them involve something else disguised as a human". Was that WP:OR on his part? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's like talking to a brick wall, FFS. As I've already said, the examples are just fine. They do indeed show examples of mythical or fictional beings concealing themselves as pretending to be or look like humans; however, SO WHAT? It's just not at all notable. And the term "human disguise" (RARELY mentioned in the references) is a construct devised by the creator of the article (when "human suit" didn't work out). If you change the title of the article to "Examples of mythical or fictional entities disguising themselves as humans" (or something like that), at least it wouldn't be original research. It would still struggle to meet the GNG, but at least it wouldn't be OR. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia people are allowed to disagree with you. Sometimes they are actually right. Sometimes they find you just as annoying. Artw (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well thanks for that useful contribution to the debate. But it wasn't me who pounced on every single "delete" !vote like it was a personal affront. I've consistently argued from a policy standpoint and left all the snide remarks to the Flambé crowd. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Snide" remarks such as "It's like talking to a brick wall" ? Or is that supposed to be a "policy" comment? (WP:BRICKWALL?) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• No. I think you'll find that it is a notable figure of speech for describing a frustrating situation where someone is making no effort to understand the reasons why they are completely wrong about something, despite being presented with the facts in plain language. Do you have any more inanity for me? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• So, for instance, all the times I've reminded you this article isn't about the phrase or term "human disguise" — only to see you come back complaining how this article lacks references for mentions of the term "human disguise" (when mythical or fictional entities disguise themselves as humans) — I've been talking to a brick wall, haven't I? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Missing the point again. When this article was created, it was about the term. Then it was confusingly about the term and the concept. Now it is about the concept. But the problem is that neither the term nor the concept are notable. And the article contains umpteen examples of entities disguising themselves as humans, but with no significant or noteworthy references that specifically refer to them as "human disguise" (a TERM being used to describe the CONCEPT). I've said all this before, but you are just not listening, or understand. If you actually understood, you would change your !vote to delete. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• And you seem to miss the point that when entities disguise themselves as humans, that is the topic here, and whether or not the term "human disguise" pops up in that context is entirely irrelevant, because the term is not the topic of this article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like you are finally beginning to understand. You have correctly stated that "human disguise" is entirely irrelevant - that's because using the term to describe this loosely-pulled-together concept is the part which is original research. As I said before, "human suit" didn't work so "human disguise" was tried instead. The article maintainers have worked really hard to make it look like a real article, but it is still based on the faulty premise that "human disguise" (as a term OR a concept) is notable. It does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• At a quick count you have responded to a keep vote, or leapt in to counter a response to response on a keep vote around half a dozen times, not to mention numerous other ocmments repeating pretty much the same line of argument without moving forwards (not to mention your blanket dismissal of all keep votes). I see Verbal and PelleSmith doing similar, with Verbal being particularly agressive at the start of the debate. People in glass houses and all that... Artw (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Evidently you are having trouble counting. I responded to legitimate keep !votes a couple of times. The rest of them were responses to the invalid !votes based on a procedural complaint. These petty comments of yours aren't really contributing anything useful, and are most certainly not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry mate, you appear to have massive double standards to the point where any conversation with you is just pointless, so I'll just stop. I'd encourage Sizzle Flambé and others to do likewise, as it's not going to get us anywhere. Artw (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP AND KEEP AND WTF. A brief glance at the nominator's contributions reveals him to be altogether AfD-happy. - Tzaquiel (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Unbelievable, is this stuff still going? Keep, and let's abolish the entire AfD process while we're at it. How many more hundreds of kilobytes do we need to waste our time with? The sources look good and the article is of a valid, encyclopedically interesting topic. But this AfD madness is just something that defies all possible explanations. How can such a simple matter turn so ugly? --a carefully considered and weighted opinion from wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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.