Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reptilian humanoids in fiction (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Reptilian humanoid#In fiction. Consensus is difficult to assess because during the AfD, the article has been cut down from a huge unsourced laundry list of appearances in fiction to two paragraphs. Taking into account that there's at least consensus that this should not be an article of its own, the sensible thing to do is to merge the remaining two paragraphs into the main article. (The opinion of the banned user taking part in this discussion was discounted.)  Sandstein  17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian humanoids in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Reptilian humanoids in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Since its previous AfD one year ago, only two in-line external links to primary sources and no reliable, secondary sources have been added. Criteria for inclusion seems based on WP:OR -- where is the publication that identifies these entries as "reptilian humanoids"? Not even citations to dialog to justify entries' inclusion here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was just a waste of time; horribly written, does not deserve to be an article. --Vhoscythechatter-sign 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a random collection of unconnected information and original research. "Reptilian" is a questionable criteria, since there doesn't seem to be any other connections between any of these characters or genres except for one small shared literary descriptive device. Essentially there's no difference between this and "Blue-eyed people" or "Movie Aliens who speak with Germanic Accents". By trying to find a connection between these subjects based on one ephemeral aspect, it becomes original research. The article starter (and later editors) have decided there's a link between these subjects that's of some importance, regardless of whether the creators of those subjects intended either that link or that importance. -Markeer 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the randomness of the collection and the OR required to populate the list. Maybe a category could serve a similar goal? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and because previous nomination was from a banned account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the Five pillars does it mention this "notability to a real-world audience" exactly? I've read them before and just re-read them now, but I don't see any such pillar or even suggestion. Possibly I'm missing something obvious -Markeer 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clearing that up. Now that I understand the Wikipedia guideline that's the basis for your argument, I'll respond that this article does not meet the general notability guidelines as described. Specifically this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there was evidence that there are secondary sources relating to a grouping of reptilian humanoids, I would be willing to listen to an argument of notability, but none is currently cited. My guess is that no such secondary source exists as this article is an unique creation, hence my delete argument above based on original research. -Markeer 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in one year it seems no secondary sources have been added to the article. Personally I don't believe any can be found. Do you have one that would change this from potentially viable to actually viable? Because if not, this isn't a case of a brand new article that just needs work. It's case of an article with a long-standing failure to adhere to Wikipedia's minimum guidelines. A "potential" argument works if one can demonstrate that it's possible for the article to improve. I won't be able to accept that possibility without verifiable evidence. -Markeer 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've seen that happen before. I don't believe it is possible in this case. Please provide multiple non-trivial secondary sources directly about this subject and this conversation can continue. -Markeer 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? what does the banned nature of the previous AFD nominator have to do with this editor in good standing and this AFD? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the previous discussion was tainted and perhaps should have been a keep rather than no consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I'm sorry that makes even less sense to me that the first time. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, anyone looking at the previous discussion will not simply conclude that consensus wasn't really reached last time, rather the previous discussion should have never occurred in the first place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's paranoid. Perhaps you should start earlier and undo all of User:Eyrian's regular article edits -- there might be a taint! --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His specific use of sockpuppetry focused on harassing inclusionists in AfDs and then elsewhere and for making frivolous AfD nominations. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? this is irrelevant to this AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about as relevant as you get as some do look to the previous discussions for precedents and ideas. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the editors who !voted delete (other than Eyrian) in last AfD are still in good standing. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. --Phirazo 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fact that he nominated it, while using alternate accounts to harass editors who disagreed with him elsewhere. We shouldn't humor such editors. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I get this straight - A new unconnected editor AFD one year later is "humoring" a banned editor. Is that really what you are saying? because if you are, it comes pretty high on my list of "silly things I've heard on wikipedia". --Allemandtando (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Killerofcruft, it matters because it gives the appearance of the first discussion being a "no consensus" rather than keep when the first discussion should never have occurred as initiated. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it's a pretty petty trick to keep using a name I changed at the request of the community? It's not something that particular bothers me because it just shows how weak your argument that you are reduced to acting like a child and attempting to poison the well but I expect others watching would expect more from an experienced editor - or then again, maybe they wouldn't. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling arguments "silly" is a weak approach to take and responding to a response you don't like with incivility is just further a way to get the discussion off focus. It is a concern if you do approach Wikipedia with a singular purpose and I hope that the whole "I kill cruft" instead gives way to colloborative editing to improve articles. Now, please, let's focus on the article under discussion instead of each other. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? and how would define the criteria for inclusion on this list without resorting to original research? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Reptilian humanoids Article is an invitation for original research (what is a reptilian humanoid? how much is enough for a mention? Are dinosaurs reptilian? turtles (technically, yes, but w/e)?). Article does not support the claim that the concept "reptilian humanoids in fiction" is notable. Such a claim, and substantiation of that claim is required under WP:GNG. Furthermore, any claim made (including the implicit claim made by the existence of the article) without a corresponding notion from any reliable source represents original research. We've been over this before. Finally, it should be taken as a sign that the cleanup tags from the last AfD remain 12 months on. This article was nominated for deletion, staunchly defended and then ignored. All it takes is one or two reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic in question. In 12 months we haven't seen that. As for the disposition of the user who initiated the original AfD, it doesn't matter at all. This AfD is different from that one, so even if all the previous users were sockpuppets and trolls, this AfD will be debated on the merits. Furthermore it does not expunge the article in question from guilt if an editor who wanted to delete it is found to be a sockpuppet. This article can either be brought into line with WP:GNG and WP:OR with a single source or it should be deleted. I would consider a merge only as an editorial decision if the article in question is greatly reduced in size before merging into a "B" class article (although it should be C class). Protonk (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the argument. None of the four editors !voting delete appear to be blocked: (User:TenPoundHammer, Realkyhick, Haemo, or Corpx). None of the Confirmed sockpuppets of Eyrian appear in the final count for that AfD. Neither the closing admin nor the deletion votes made arguments based strictly on the banned user's nomination. What I see is a no consensus result and a tag for cleanup, one year ago. The primary citation in this afd of that afd has been the citation of that cleanup tag. We could hardly suggest the tag itself is somehow the fruit of a banned user. Furthermore, the ban came 4 months after this AfD. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that this AfD was not mentioned in the ArbCom case. If we have a precedent of rejecting community decisions on the basis of single user malfeasance, please produce it. As it stands, I don't see an argument to do so. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ban came after the AfD, but the problems that led to the ban were going on well before it. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, LeGrand. You've got to think more of me than that. Regardless of the nominator, the previous AfD came to a conclusion that isn't "poisoned" by any guideline I am familiar with. Again, If we have a precedent of rejecting community decisions on the basis of single user malfeasance, please produce it. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea[edit]

Already exists here --Allemandtando (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see then that we have a valid merge and redirect location at Reptilian humanoids#In fiction. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a serious problem with this article that I wouldn't normally mention in an AfD, but it was brought up. If you read this list, there are flat out incorrect listings (almost all unsourced), I have no problem with a merge, but anything that isn't sourced needs to be deep sixed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started along that path. Removed some OR, etc. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know enough to suss out the flat out incorrect ones. If you know that some on the list are wrong, please remove them--that way if we end up merging this we don't merge incorrect content. Preferably if you have a source to add in correction, that would be awesome, but a correction alone would be helpful. :) Protonk (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a worthwhile subject, high in content, although it needs some sourced information to put it in context. It's easy to see why reptilian humanoids are commonly seen in horror and science fiction. From the days of the Garden of Eden and Medusa, reptiles have been the villains in literature; the average reptile looks and feels unpleasant; an intelligent reptile is usually not portrayed as cute and cuddly either. I've seen discussions of why fiction writers like to curdle the blood with the certain images, with reptiles (snakes, lizards, etc.) being one of those things. The bigger problem is identifying sources. I've found one, so far, in Google books. There are others in reference works about themes in science fiction. For those who see promise in the article, don't argue about it, add to it. Mandsford (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and change to weak keep not sure why I didn't see the reptiles in myth or reptiles in fables connection. There is a lot of anthro and culture lit to build this article from. I've basically stubbed it. Hopefully it will become a good article, not a repository for "ZOMG lizards". Protonk (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • followup Possible sources are listed on the talk page. Be careful when using them, specific mention of reptilian humanoids is what we are looking for. There are limits to how much we may extrapolate from "reptilian", which will appear a lot. But I just realized that Medusa is a reptilian humanoid (and there's a source about her on the talk page from JSTOR!). good hunting. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I have the same question that I did on "Doomsday devices in popular culture." Namely, what accounts of reptilian humanoids are not fiction? David Icke seems to believe that they are real, but that sort of delusion is not something Wikipedia needs to indulge. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, that is a good point. I feel sheepish. :) Protonk (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baaa. It's a complaint about the title. We wouldn't delete an article about time travel fiction on the grounds of "what accounts of time travel are not fiction". I don't know David Icke, though I surmise that he and Will Oakland aren't friends; I think it's uncalled for to suggest that any editor is under "some sort of delusion". I think an article that includes sourced observations about the use of a reptile to evoke fear. It doesn't always work that way, of course. If you want to get downright silly, we can observe that millions of children have loved singing along with what would, technically, be a reptilian humanoid. Barney, perhaps, represents a corollary to the rule about reptiles. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I still think we should keep the article. I just think the comment about the title was succinct, accurate and funny. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know who David Icke is, it's not hard to find out before you post nonsense. The comparison to time travel is dubious, as the existing "time travel" article has plenty of referenced material on the scientific aspects. WillOakland (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, some British inside joke. How "humourous". Jolly good old chap. Carry on, carry on. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with reptilian humanoids. No need for a separate article. Lol at Will's comment.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge - I would be careful, there are those among us who think that there are reptilian humanoids among us. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge per this edit. The article is vastly improved without bulleted "I spy" trivia. --Phirazo 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as of the edit Phirazo links, I have no objection to merging it with the main article. Lost all elements of being a dumping ground for fans to talk about their favorite walking lizard. -Markeer 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is certainly enough material, beginning at least with Lovestone and Capek. the main article can then include a discussion of the ideas at least a few people actually think not fictional--I wouldnt want to run any chance of confusing that nonsense with good fiction. DGG (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reptilian humanoid until such time as it is sufficient to be split to a stand-alone list/article. Jim Miller (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading that link, by "determined" you mean "suspected", which is a word that means "undetermined". Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: Stop making straw man arguments on this page. I recommend you remove your comment above (if you do, you have my permission to remove this reply as well) -Markeer 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. A checkuser has determined based on evidence that the account is "likely." We typically point out single-purpose or sock accounts in AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, this is the second straw man argument used here and it's distracting and unnecessary. If you like, I can replace all of those user's comments with identical comments of my own as I am clearly not a sock puppet, but I would prefer not to climb the reichstag simply to make a point. Far as I can see, the only comments made by this user were against the previous straw man argument above, and that irony alone makes me willing to put in the copy and paste effort. Le Grand, you are disrupting this conversation which so far has been productive. I'll repeat that I recommend this exchange be removed (and again you have my permission to remove my remarks along with yours). I'm simply not willing to remove someone else's comments myself (of course). -Markeer 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm far more concerned about a likely ban evading sock disrupting this discussion. And it is of the utmost importance that we don't tolerate such efforts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 18 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reptilian_humanoids_in_fiction_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136108707"