Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filler (media)

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, per article improvement and RS. Dweller (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filler (media)[edit]

Pure original research/personal essay/venting/opinion type material; has remained unreferenced for a year and a half. Primarily a fan term, and article basically just recites various fan opinions on what a "filler" is for different media. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this fails WP:N, but it sure does fail WP:NOR. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending rewrite as result of changes made since original nom. The original research is going away. I see a decent article emerging here. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be found. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not fit in the norms and no much references Kalivd (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has much potential as it is based upon a common feature of many media. I have made a start upon improving the article to demonstrate this potential and have added references. The above comments can therefore be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, they can't just "be discounted" they are still valid. Two minor references for a single entirely new section that actually introduces an entirely new meaning of filler does not mean the above arguments are now all invalid. One, the first, claims to be a book reference without any actual page numbers to support the claim. The second, again , talks about a totally different style of "filler" which would be more accurately called by its more official name of interstitial, and is already covered in Interstitial program.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'm not completely sure on this myself. I think the topic has potential, but we definitely need to cut out the original research. I would suggest a merge, like maybe to some kind of TV terms list, if we have one. I suggest a merge because, as it is now, I can't see our coverage of this being more than a few sentences or maybe a paragraph. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, better served by a dictionary definition, which I'm sure it already has. Doceirias (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Ned. Also, you could just cut out the sections that don't have references if you're going to nitpick. All of the information in this article is undeniably true though. I think it would be unwise to cut the article just because it has NOR. Rather than delete it, find sources to back it. It's a useful article and a popular term.Vinny (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the only referenced material, added by Colonel Warden, is already covered in Interstitial program, which is the proper name for that particular type of program. All of the information in the article is not "undeniably true" by any stretch. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps interstitial program should be our merge/redirect target? -- Ned Scott 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I might agree, however the only part of this article that is discussing interstitial programs is the part added after it was sent for AfD. That's part of the problem with the article. Its various people's personal opinion of what a "filler" is, with none of them being the same thing, or even related. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial program is an inferior article in that it has no sources and is a narrower term. Filler is a more general concept which applies to several media in somewhat different ways. It is proper to address it at this level because we have considerable crossover and convergence between media - hence the academic field of media studies to which this topic belongs. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be improved, it's not a neologism. AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup purposes. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease provide the reliable sources to verify that filler is a valid term (not a fan term) and that the article is not OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED provides an example of usage in a literary sense: "1913 Writer's Mag. Dec. 247/1 Fillers of a few hundred words in this field..are desirable in this department.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Article has been significantly improved as of 20 June. Please take into consideration when evaluating recommendations and consensus. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:05, 24 June 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.