Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 15 >

14 June 2008

[edit]
  • Alien and Predator timeline – Deletion endorsed. The assertion, that the closure's own reasoning influenced their reading of consensus isn't shared widely, and a general agreement that there was sufficient consensus to delete this timeline is not swayed by the additional cites for some dates that have brought up here. With respect to merging, the history needs only to be undeleted, if content actually remains in the main article but cannot be attributed otherwise. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alien and Predator timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)


Clearly no consensus reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination); all deletion rationales effectively challenged. Suggest relisting or reclosing as "no consensus." Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were not. Policy trumps opinion. When you say "there are sources", you have to actually prove it rather than just say it. Sources that discuss reception are clearly unsuitable to back up content for a timeline. Please don't respond...I've seen the regurgitation of people's comments and I don't want to be prodded about my choice of endorse. I have made my mind up by examining the debates and will not change my mind unless ACTUAL sources are brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. Otherwise I'm seeing something that is original research, unverified by tertiary reliable sources and therefore has no notability established. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, policy does trump opinion and if we go by policy then we would keep the article. I have shown that sources do exist. Sources that do more than just discuss reception, but also mention the timeline coupled with commentary on DVDs are clearly suitable to back up content for a timeline. Actual sources have been brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. It is not original research and is verified by reliable sources and therefore notability has been established. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closer correctly assessed the consensus at hand that was based on policy, and discredited the parts of the opposition that were backed by personal opinion. Nothing has been shown that the article passes WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy based consensus would have been to keep then as it passed what Wikipedia is, is unoriginal research, is verifiable, and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not true because you haven't provided sources to back up the information in the article, and you haven't provided any evidence that the article is notable. All of your assertions here are fluff and have no credibility if there isn't something concrete behind them. Actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research changes arguments, not mere statements that it is so without tangible evidence. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the whole discussion, you will see that I have presented sources to back up the information in the article. Saying the article is not notable is like saying an apple is a bannana. All of your assertions here are fluff an dhave no credibility as actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research has been presented. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I can safely say the article isn't notable in absence of sources to say otherwise. I've read the discussion. You've shown that science fiction encyclopedias exist; whether they even address or comment on Alien vs. Predator is quite another matter. You've claimed that reviews exist throughout the article, but never shown them. You've never provided a single source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, or that its content isn't all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. You've never linked to a review or provided an example of a review. Claiming otherwise is simply lying at this point, and your perpetutation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. Show that sources exist by showing them now, or your arguments are well, fluff. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can safely say the article is notable, because sources have been mentioned in the discussion. I have indeed cited a review in this discussion that comments on Alien vs. Predator. I have provided a source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, and that its content is not all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've also illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. I have linked to a review. Claiming that I haven't is simply lying at this point, and your perpetuation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. I have shown that source and it is not my problem if you are unable to locate it in the discussion, as your arguments are well, fluff. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Correct closure, WP:SYN creation without honest verifiability. Delete rationales were not rebutted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correct closure based on arguments, not numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While reading through the arguements, consensus did weave back and forth a little, and no consensus did seem a perfectly valid close. Right up until the end, when PeaceNT made another statement that the films do not actually verify the dates in the timeline. I just checked Alien (own a VHS copy), and this seems to be the case. If the content can't even be verified from primary sources, it can be safely assumed that the content is original research. Given this, the keep arguements are all clearly weaker. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda' saying that quite a bit that is supposedly sourced from primary sources can't actually be. For instance, dates aren't explicitly mentioned in Alien. Nor are they in Aliens (though it does take place 57 years later; again, I own a VHS copy). The dates appear to be WP:OR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason my DVD disc is skipping, but anyway my DVD of the Aliens Special Edition includes a scene in which Ripley is handed a photograph of her daughter. The photograph includes the deceased daughter's "DB" and "DECEASED" dates (years, months, days). The dialogue says that the daughter died 2 years prior to the events in which the scene takes place and the DVD description text says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien. Also, if you watch the next scene in which Ripley is talking with all of the company types and look at the screen with green letters, you will see dates included in that text as well. I'll have to watch all the movies again to see if there are other such inclusion of dates as well and again would have to check again if they match the article's dates, but in any event, there are at least two scenes in the special edition of Aliens that do in fact satisfy that aspect of the primary source element by displaying specific dates down to the days and months even. Sincerely,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must've missed them; I didn't get far into Alien and had friends over the last time I watched both, so... Whatever. Retracted above comments, I'm now neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Me and Le Grand Roi disagree here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My restoring of the article should not be taken as a change of opinion, and it should still be deleted if the result of this DRV is Endorse. There is no GFDL issue; the information shouldn't have been merged whilst under AfD anyway, and regardless the history will still exist at that article. However, it should be removed from that article, as the result of the AfD was not Merge. Black Kite 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is unprotected, then I would be able to add the citations that any reasonable person would see meets our standards. Someone other than one of the participants here merged the material, which is okay, after all we're trying to build an encyclopedia and therefore because of that we do at least need to keep as a redirect per the GFDL. I suggest perhaps contacting the user who merged and notifying him or her of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - that would set a really poor precedent. We don't need to keep a redirect because that editor merged the information whilst the AfD was running. If we do this, people are just going to start copying material from any article at AfD to another one, calling it a "merge", and then saying "look, you can't delete it at AFD now because of the GFDL". The original editor might've done it innocently, but that really isn't the point. Black Kite 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that would be a bad thing. After all, we do encourage editors to be "bold." And if the information is considered valuable enough by editors to merge in good faith, then it shouldn't be a problem. Now if an editor merged something libelous or that was a copyright violation, okay sure, but in this case when a number of editors also agree that there is some value in keeping the information somewhere, one AfD shouldn't be the end all of the mtter. After all, we allow editors to keep renominating articles for deletion even if previous AfDs closed as keep. So, if someone thinks the material can be merged and others agree regardless of one five day AfD concerning information for an article that has been around for several months and which a number of editors have worked on, we should allow those editors to do the best they can with the material in question so that they can better develop our comprehensive general/special encyclopedia/almanac. It would be unacademic to think that certain articles can never be improved. We already know that this article is a legitimate search term and as seen above, there is a substantial split regarding its value to our project. If we keep it in some capacity, then those like myself who own the Quadilogy four disc set (which means sooner or later I can get around to watching the special features and commentary for any comments on timeline) and those who have subscriptions to magazines or books (I have an Alien novel lying about somewhere that I can check when I get a chance for any mention of dates) can look for interviews with the filmmakers as to when they films are set. I know the films do have some coverage in books and so I would be shocked if there isn't some kind of coverage and discussion of the films' setting that could allow for a beter referenced actual timeline and maybe even a reception section as well. I do not think this is a clear case of something that has no Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I strongly believe that we can reasonably improve the article further and that we should be able to do so as if we succeed, we will only improve our project, but whereas we don't really gain anything by just deleting an article that a number of editors (I'm not alone on this one) also believe has value. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion'. By what possible rationale can this mess of original research and unreliable sources be kept? Corvus cornixtalk 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE GFDL Issue. There is an issue, as deleted content from Alien and Predator timeline exists in Alien vs. Predator without complete attribution. The obvious solutions are (1) restore Alien and Predator timeline as a redirect to Alien vs. Predator, or (2) remove the content from Alien vs. Predator. Arguably, an alternative case for DRV might be that the merge option, while mentioned in AfD2, was obscured by excessive verbiage, not given enough attention, and was actually a good idea. Thus, given that I thing the close was harsh but fair, the question now should be whether the material should be allowed to stay in Alien vs. Predator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in Aliens do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Le Grand, you have made your opinion quite clear. Please trust that the rest of us are smart enough and conscientious enough to have read the comments above - and that even after having read your comments, we can in good faith disagree with you. Responding to every post and repeating the same arguments over and over detracts from your credibility. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, although if it is a discussion, I think it should flow as one, i.e. one in which we interact, and I hope that some of the above will also acknowledge that repeating their same arguments over and over just as much detracts from their credibility. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my arguments in the AfD. I'm sure that within a few hours (minutes?) LGRdC will step in and say that all my arguments were successfully refuted, but the fact is (and I think the closing admin would obviously agree) they weren't. None of the editors who want to keep the article offer any solutions to its numerous problems: It is original research because it is based only on primary sources. It is merely plot summary in a different form. Even if it were permitted to only be based on primary sources, much of the information does not appear to be verified by the films (on that note: I'm re-watching the films to check on this...so far only watched Alien in which no dates are given. I've been out of town a few days so it'll take me a while to get to the rest). The notability of the article's topic has been challenged and not a single secondary source has been provided to support its claims to notability. It has been 2 and a half months since the close of the first AfD and no efforts have been made to address any of these valid concerns, despite the placement of maintenance tags. The "keep" !voters offer no solutions; they merely claim that these problems are "non-arguments" (ie. that articles may be based only on primary sources...complete poppycock which contradicts all of the core article policies: V, NOR, & NOT). Consensus is of course not a vote, but I see in the AfD a 2/3 majority in favor of deletion based on valid, well-reasoned arguments backed up by policies; vs. 1/3 opposed to deletion with rationales like "wikilawyering" and "helps alien and predator fans". There are of course LGRdC's arguments such as "notability is inherited" and "secondary sources are not required" but as I've already pointed out numerous times these are incorrect assumptions that completely contradict many of our policies and guidelines as well as precedent established in past AfDs where notability was a major concern. LGRdC, you needn't reply to this comment (though I imagine you will anyway) as I'm not interested in another circular debate with you in which you merely take my own words and change "is" to "isn't" & repeat the same opinions ad nauseum. The opinions of the few others who agree with you are the only ones you seem to consider valid anwyay. In my honest opinion Black Kite judged the consensus properly, weighing not only the !votes but the validity of the arguments and their reflection of Wikipedia's policies and best practices. The swift listing here at DRV only shows that the few editors who did !vote "keep" view any closure not in their favor as unfair and "no consensus", which any reasonable person actually reading the arguments in the AfD will see is untrue. To claim that Black Kite somehow simply disregarded the "keep" !votes is complete and utter nonsense and amounts only to petulant whining on the part of those who did not get their way. Just because a discussion does not end the way you wanted it to does not mean that the arbiter ignored your arguments. I find this whole thing ridiculous, and the only thing keeping me from washing my hands of the whole affair is the desire not to appear as though I have been beaten into submission by pointless repetition until finally throwing up my hands in surrender, as it seems Black Kite was driven to do. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems the deletion was driven by some poor overgeneralizations. Our general notability guideline prescribes that articles should generally be supported by secondary sources that substantiate the notability of the subject. A common exception, which is not specifically mentioned in WP:N but is supported by some precedent (albeit an inconsistent one) and some related guideline, deals with forking large amounts of content. Subjects like Alien and Predator are highly notable, so it makes sense to document them in somewhat more depth than usual, but for obvious reasons we don't want the whole . For all intents and purposes the timeline can be considered an extension of the Alien and Predator article, and it should be evaluated as such. We give this appropriately unique treatment to lists all the time (hence we have a list of bridges, which certainly does not meet WP:N); the same concept applies to this timeline. There's a reason why our general notability guideline is not policy (and even our "official policies" are not exactly policies). There is a similar issue with the primary sources. Primary sourcing is bad in many contexts -- often they are difficult or impossible to access (unpublished interview, for example), and often they are subject to varying, contentious interpretations. There is absolutely no problem with using a film as a primary reference for unambiguous, descriptive observations; the interpretations that are being drawn from WP:V and WP:RS have very little to do with the spirit thereof. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that the summary style guidelines you bring up caution against splitting a topic that doesn't have real-world coverage, in the section WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

"Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article."

In this case the specific notability criteria would be WP:FICT#Elements of fiction which is still in development, but also calls for real-world coverage through secondary sources: "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." "Evidence of notability should explain what is special about the topic, such as awards, rankings, sales figures or studies and analyses specifically relating to the element in question." Precedent does show that list articles are often treated a bit differently (hence we have separate featured list criteria, which by the way still call for the use of reliable sources). However, the article in question here is not a list article. It is an attempt to synthesize plot information from a series in a separate article, and hence is an article devoted entirely to plot summary. The list of bridges you point out is just that: a list of other articles. It serves much the same purpose as Category:Bridges. This article is significantly more than that, as it presents and synthesizes plot information and relies quite a bit on the detective skills of the author (you can see that once the article's talk page is undeleted). As seen there, here, and in the 2 AfDs, there is quite a bit of contention as to whether the films actually verify the dates given in the article. There do seem to be varying, contentious interpretations because the dates in the films are, in many cases, ambiguous. I'm looking into this issue independently at the moment, but obviously this takes time as it involves skimming through 8 films. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section was added about two months ago, following minor edit warring but no talk page discussion. It's unclear whether the addition would stand up to scrutiny if the little-known guideline were watched by a more substantial number of editors. There is some precedent for giving unique treatment to certain types of forks, but as I said, it is an inconsistent one; it doesn't take much searching to see that WP:FICT, WP:NOT#FICT, and WP:SS are in a state of derangement. (The related ArbCom finding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status, states it succinctly.) Given this, I think it's appropriate to discuss the merits of various interpretations (which is what my above comment attempts to do). — xDanielx T/C\R 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Timelines are an important sidebar for understanding complex multi version fiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion Review is not AfD round 2, please provide an explanation of why you believe this AfD was closed incorrectly. Whether or not timelines are useful in general is irrelevant. --Stormie (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No evidence that deletion process was not followed properly; no new sourcing has come to light. The mass of verbiage presented by the nominator is merely an attempt to reargue the AfD here. Deor (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually re-read the above discussion more carefully. New sourcing has indeed come to light. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only 1 source has been presented: A review of Alien vs. Predator which only mentions that the film is set between the 2 existing franchises and that it takes place in 2004. This is obvious to anyone, especially if you've already read the Alien vs. Predator article, and it certainly doesn't show why the timeline of events in the series is notable. Claiming that "new sourcing has indeed come to light", when it consists only of 1 source that barely addresses this article's subject, is a rather specious claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am also referring to the primary source discovery of dates that appear in the special edition of Aliens. At least two of those who had previously argued to delete did so based on lack of primary evidence, so the review is an effort to address those with secondary source concerns (if I could find one, I bet given even more time, I'll find others) and the scenes mentioned from Aliens address the secondary source claims (I'll have to rewatch the whole series to see if there are more, but I wonder if the novelizations and reviews of the novelizations could also turn up stuff? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could I request temporary undeletion of the article's talk page as well - there were some discussions there on some of the issues that need to be fixed, and/or what people might be doing to fix them. (I also think that expecting huge amounts to be done at end-of-semester for a number of the major contributors was asking a bit much.) I'd ask BlackKite directly, but he appears to have gone on wikibreak. thx, umrguy42 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus per DGG. Closer appears to have acted more in tune with his/her personal feelings about the article, rather than with the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community. To disclose fully, as mentioned above, I myself did argue to keep the article. Ford MF (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Could an interested admin please check on the restoration of the article? It seems to be in some sort of protected state and is not able to be edited, and the talk page has not been restored. Although I still support deletion, the apparent error bugs me and is preventing at least 1 interested party (Le Grand) from potentially making good faith edits. I am conducting some investigating of my own into the article's verifiability problems that I would like to post on the talk page if the deletion is indeed overturned (which, again, I don't think should happen, but if it is overturned I would like a place to present these findings). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Done by XDanielx. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you be more specific about that example? I don't see a relation between that case and this one at all. That was a case built around NOTNEWS and dealing with an article about a current event; this is an article dealing with a subtopic of a science fiction franchise. I'm even further confused by the fact that you !voted to delete in that article, yet you ask for an overturn here. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Without trying to be WP:POINTy, the no consensus close there was determined from the NOT#NEWS being unable to sway the keeps, who were poignant in their opposition to deletion. I see the same poingancy here, and none of the NOT#SYN and NOT#PLOT arguments, made any of the keeps change their arguments, or at least consider a merge. That does not strike me as consensus, and since there ratio of people with the same keep argument to people the same delete argument is even closer in this case, I feel they should be closed the same way, as no consensus. Consenus can always change, and at a future AfD, perhaps one argument will be more persuaive. Please note I would have !voted to overturn anyway, but I felt this recent case provides a good example to work from when defining "no consensus" (even though I disagree with the AFD and DRV of my example, I am following what my interpreation of the overall community opinion is). MrPrada (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. Here's the problem - the people supporting the article keep claiming that the facts in it are verifiable. Bottom line: It's just not true. If you watch any of the films, no dates are given in any of them except two - Predator 2 and Alien vs. Predator. Now, Predator 2 does provide a date for the first Predator in its confines, but that's it. NO dates are given in any of the Alien films for when they happen; you can claim over and over that there's verifiable evidence, but it's simply not there. I even own the novelizations of these movies, and again, no dates exist. We have here all these arguments about "secondary sources' and stuff, and that's just irrelevant; the PRIMARY SOURCES do not back this information up. There are basically no sources. Only through crazy math and a lot of assumptions do you come up with these dates. The last time it was proposed for deletion, the creator backed it up by linking to another fan's online timeline. And that timeline was backed up with... a lot of admitted guesswork. If that's the best we've got, it really doesn't belong on Wiki. Fanon doesn't belong, original research doesn't belong. It's gotta go. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aliens includes scenes that do in fact provide specific dates and other reliable material does indicate the time that passes between films. Claiming that dates do not exist is just not true; I rewatched the film the other day and there they are in two scenes at least. Unoriginal research does belong. It has to stay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Original research and guesswork are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and the discussion never addressed this cogently. --Haemo (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. After reading the discussion above, the AfD discussion itself and looking at the restored version of the article, it seems to me that the closing admin made a reasonable decision in interpreting consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that some of it was merged and so due to teh GFDL, we cannot keep the article deleted. Also, requests have been made to unprotect the article in order to reference it and perhaps relist. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (briefly returning from Wikibreak). (1) I have unprotected the article for the time being. (2) There is no need to relist unless this DRV results in "Overturn and Relist". (2) There is no GFDL issue. The material shouldn't have been merged during the AfD, and if this DRV results in Endorse, then we merely remove the merged material as well. Black Kite 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a merge during an afd doesn't prevent an article from getting deleted, for obvious reasons. The merged material can be removed from the merge target, and if someone starts edit-warring to put it back, he can be blocked for disruption or violating copyright (in case the material wasn't originally written by him). - Bobet 11:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does this refer to list in Alien vs. Predator? I'm neutral to to all this and did not do anything to this timeline article. Ultra! 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, in the sense that if this closes with 'endorse deletion', the list should be removed. And it's generally not a good idea to do a merge during an afd, unless the forming concensus is obvious. If the concensus isn't obvious, you can leave a note in the discussion saying you'd be willing to do a merge if the discussion gets closed with that result; it's always appreciated and can sometimes get merge decisions closed faster (since admins don't always like doing mergers themselves). On another note, when you merge stuff, you should leave a note about it in your edit summary. - Bobet 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of article whose premise -- that there is a coherent time continuum/frame and that characters' dialog and small print on a prop sheet of paper -- is original research and a failure to abide by policies regarding reliable sources. Weight of strong delete arguments bolstered by WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:OR trump unsubstantiated claims of secondary sources existing out in the ether. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - the dates for Alien and Aliens are clearly stated in the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual (ISBN 0061053430), the other dates are mentioned in either the movie novelisations or on screen. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, but the Technical Manual isn't provided as a referenced in the article. If you own it, you could add citations to some of the dates and that might help. It still doesn't solve the problem of secondary sources, though (the Tech. Manual is a primary source, as it's a work of fiction and part of the supporting media for Aliens). Also, as Bishop2 points out, the films and their novelizations do not actually mention most of the dates that appear in the timeline article. If you have those novelizations and can prove that they show the dates, go ahead and add them as references or bring them up here. Otherwise it seems several other editors disagree that they give any dates. What's really needed are third-party sources which discuss the timeline of events in these films and why they are significant. This would solve the original research and notability issues. But I don't belive such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Disambiguation page was improperly speedily redirected as "total nonsense, unreferenced, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as blatant POV and false," yet this was the title reported in each case by international news organizations as the BBC, CBC, Time, Newsweek, and The Hindu. Dab pages don't cite articles, they cannot be written "fanzine-style" as it is a list of articles with a common characteristic, and attempts to add the cited terms to the appropriate articles [1],[2],[3] have been quickly reverted by a particular fervent editor who subsequently threatened a block for 3RR. Dab pages cannot be POV if they merely contain lists of people who have been reported in the international press as having that sobriquet. The fact that reliable sources, namely news organizations, have reported people as being dubbed with that name, clearly show that A) the term is not nonsense and B) either a dab page or a stand-alone article is needed here. The dab page itself was prompted by a WP:RfD discussion of The Queen of Bollywood, which itself is a redirect to an article that was mentioned on the dab page. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. All of the mentioned sites are, though reliable, often written in a magazine style. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
    Just a good aside note,
    ( The list was in addition to being redundant, was full of blatant POV and bias. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, why it's clearly isn't the case. Your list for example did not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity, especially considering they are also described this way, but you - either overlooked or didn't notice, which can happen quite often in this case. And that's only my simple list; someone can come tomorrow and wonder why another actress is not there. ).
    Coming back to the matter, another important note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that?
    It's by all means nonsense. I ould say, assuming good faith, that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies. This list, dab or whatever is clearly in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's check a few of the above assertions here. As stated below, omission is not a reason for the deletion of a disambiguation page - all you have to do is add the missing entries. A dab page listing the articles for actresses and singers that have been reported by international news organizations (not fan sites) is NPOV as long as the entries all meet a common criterion. Third, I urge the editors to revisit the Wikipedia definition of WP:NONSENSE - this clearly falls short of this. Using cited reference from reliable sources refutes any accusation of OR, and a one-sentence mention of such a cited, objective statement by the BBC, and so forth, is hardly undue weight. From this end, it looks more like a turf battle instead of an actual, valid, justification for a speedy deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disapproval of the page - "Queen of Bollywood" is merely a loose title occasionally used by the media to glorify an actress in a discussion. For an encyclopedia any "Queen of Bollywood" is likely to be subject to POV of the actress involved and it certianly should not be linked, if mentioned at all in an encyclopedia. I wonder how many actresses could be called a Queen. There are several, whether its Rekha, Hema Malini, or modern day Aishawarya Rai or Preity Zinta, Ther eis only one "Queen" so a dab page is highly inappropriate and not what this encyclopedia is about. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but not for any of the reasons the deleting admin cited. None of the pages on that dab use the word "queen" anywhere in the body text and all should've been removed. This would've left a blank article which could be deleted under A3. So deletion overall is a good thing. However, the reasons cited are nearly all bunk, with the exception of nonsense, which the cached version at least wasn't. The deleting admin and the tagging editor need to note this to avoid mistakes in the future, but in this case the end result is proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTES. 1) I brought this to DRV in an attempt for a wider discussion than the three or four people who actually saw it before it was hastily deleted. It would be nice, if not appropriate, to let the rest of the Wikipedia community actually see the disambiguation page that lasted less than three hours. The wider review is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 2) None of the pages currently have the cited phrase as one of the editors above was particularly fervent in reverting without even looking at either the statement or the sources such as Newsweek, Time, the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, CBS News... and that's just a handful of reliable sources. Thus the reverting was clearly in bad faith, and rather than aim for WP:LAME, particular after a WP:THREAT regarding WP:3RR from the same fervent editor, it was more prudent to take the issue here. 3) Dab pages don't have citations; furthermore, they are rarely complete - omissions are reasons for editing, not deletion. 4) Regarding the comment about CSD#R3: good-faith edits cannot be vandalism (per WP:VANDAL), and the creation of a dab page is clearly a good faith edit; therefore CSD R3 cannot apply here. 5) Regarding Lifebaka's comments, the "nonsense" point is itself nonsense, as reported by international news agencies, as stated above. 6) As I pointed out in my discussions with both User:Shshshsh and the deleting admin, the fact that so many international news organizations globally have used the term in stating to that phrase having been applied to various Bollywood actresses and singers necessitates either a dab page to the various article of the people addressed by the reliable sources only or a stand-alone article covering the term Queen of Bollywood. 7) Denying both possibilities is also counter to Wikipedia policies - as to POV and bias, Shshshsh must be reminded of the difference between the POV of stating that someone is "Queen of Bollywood" in the form of a personal opinion and stating that a reliable news source has applied the sobriquet to her or has factually stated that it had been applied. For the time being, I urge a temporary undeletion so that the rest of the Wikipedia community can view the dab page in question so they can have an informed input into this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't entirely worked out what's going on here, but cannot see why Queen of Bollywood is neither a redirect nor a dab page. It's a term in existance, has lots of google hits, including reliable sources, and it should not be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you also create an article for Hollywood? I repeat, it's just a way to praise popular actresses - and you can praise evewhere: newspapers, fansites. Every possible actress who saw success has been described the Queen.
      It's POV and I can explain wby. Examples only:
      A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
      B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but did not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the user who created the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress or just did not notice. Both cases show that such pages are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
      As for reliable sources - it's still fangush. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
      BTW, if that's so important, would you find a source describing the term itself? Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, before the big brouhahah, I had, in fact found 28 citations from reliable sources stating that various women were dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" (and one as "Queen of Bollywood music") - about 10-11 in the three diffs above. Of course, the arguments immediately above this post are but a obfuscation of the purpose of deletion review, which is stated atop the WP:DRV page to be used to review the process of the deletion. We still do not have an explanation of the CSD criterion being used for its speedy deletion anywhere - the rationale by the deleting admin was a (disputed) rationale for deletion under RfD, not CSD. Of course, as hinted by the posts by Shshshsh/Shalid and User:SmokeyJoe above, should someone wish to write a NPOV article about the widely-used and -reported term Queen of Bollywood instead of the dab page, I would have no such objection and would be more than willing to withdraw my application for review upon the composition and delivery of such an adequately-sourced article. Of course, if someone wishes even to block that article, even if it's written with a worldwide view, it would be clear that he/she/it would be more interested in denying good faith by the other editors that are involved here, in which case there's a deeper problem than just the improper deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't realize this discussion was already underway when I found the page. The page at time of deletion did not qualify for speedy-deletion under any of our existing criteria. In particular, it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way that we use the term here. I assumed that it was a good-faith oversight on the part of the deleting admin and, since out-of-process speedies are to be immediately restored and sent to XfD for community discussion, I did that. Then I backed out my creation of the AfD nomination in favor of some notes on history on the disambig's Talk page. I do not have strong feelings on the content of the article one way or the other but this detailed discussion of the relative merits of the page belongs on AfD. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Sons of Eilaboun – Deletion endorsed. I felt this discussion was particularly tricky in that both sides bring up useful points on what amounts to a judgment call. The latitude that a closer has in disregarding the !votes of sock- and meat-puppets is wide. Even if they seem to be making cogent points, their on-wiki credibility and the credibility of their arguments is called into question by the tactics they use and the obfuscation that their participation creates--particularly if their arguments are not endorsed by actual contributors to the encyclopedia. In this DRV discussion itself, the discussion is split between those who felt there was an interpretable consensus for deletion (weighing policy and guideline concerns) and those who felt there was not. Inspecting the AfD itself, I feel as though it was a very close call that the closer made. I then viewed the content of the article and matched the !votes in the AfD to the facts of the article. Given the extremely poor condition of the article (it barely even asserted importance as it stood), the deletion arguments were and continue to be more persuasive, and the burden of proof lies on those wishing to challenge the procedure of the XfD closure. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Sons of Eilaboun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

horrible amount of sock-puppetering/meat-puppetering, however, please look at the merits of the film itself Huldra (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yuck, that's a mess. And it really pains me to think that I have to !vote overturn to no consensus here, when the closing admin had such a hard job. I'm guessing he ignored the !votes of all the SPAs in there, but some of them had actual good arguements (namely, User:JFCK and User:87.175.1.42), which is enough to tip the balance off of delete. Not nearly enough to swing all the way to keep, but enough for no consensus. I'd personally suggest giving the article some time to be worked on before nominating it again, but mostly likely another AfD should happen in a few months to check if a consensus has formed, if people still want it deleted. It'd also be nice to get a few established editors who know Arabic in to check sources and such in the meantime. Also, you probably should've discussed this with the closing admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I still haven't seen any evidence that the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria. WP:COI also a problem, as evidenced in the AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. FYI to Lifebaka, I allowed for a couple of the meatpuppeters making decent points but still interpreted overall consensus for the AFD was "delete". —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – We aren't here to debate the merits of the film itself, only whether it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Right now, it doesn't. Perhaps after it's released we'll see some reviews or other coverage that would show how it's a notable film but, until then, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist. I think that in all of the meatpuppetry, some refutations of the delete arguments were lost (such as DGG's "Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film.") Other editors may have been discouraged from contributing due to the socks. MrPrada (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist I think MrPrada is right, many arguments were lost, and example waht user Arab48 wrote:
 "This film meets the following WP:MOVIE criterias:
 Other evidence of notability” 
 3.The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio. 

 The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4 
 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making. 
 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_14&oldid=1141484809"