Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraviolet map

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 of the debate was No consensus. Stifle 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to clarify my vote counts here by User:Leflyman. I am first marking votes that I discounted.
There is a total of 11 Keep, 9 Delete, and 10 Merge from established users, and a further 6 Keep and 5 Merge discounted votes. Where someone made multiple votes (e.g. "keep or merge") I took the first one without prejudice. There is clearly no consensus on what to do, although if you count keeps and merges as the same you could say there is a consensus not to delete. In any case, the keep or merge conundrum can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet map[edit]

Fancruft and full of speculation -- Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I agree there is some speculation, there is also a lot of fact (the translation of the Latin phrases for example). If anything it should be rewritten to remove speculation; deletion is overkill in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongrel (talk • contribs) March 30, 2006
  • I agree with Jtrost and vote for deletion. Fan speculation. Rlove 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree also. This could be rolled into Dharma Initiative. Coffeeboy 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, latin phrases and external links can be merged to DHARMA Initiative. Arru 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, this article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.243.66 (talk • contribs) March 30, 2006
    Comment This user's only contributions have been to this article and this afd. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, IP addresses don't count.
  • Delete. No need to keep proliferating Lost articles on every minor detail. Merge factual content, where appropriate, into DHARMA Initiative. -- PKtm 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as all of the facts are transfered to the DHARMA Initiative page and it has its own section as this map is quite interesting and in future episodes more may come out about it.Childzy 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting article, but if we add a new article everytime the writers add a new bit of mythology to Lost, it will get unwieldly before they hit 4 seasons. I've merged this article DHARMA Initiative which is the most logical place for it. It should only fork out if DHARMA gets too big.--Isotope23 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the kids over at DHARMA Initiative, didn't like my bold edit, I change my vote to Merge to see if we get any consensus here.--Isotope23 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes sense to have this separate. The Dharma Initiative page can link to this. There's nothing wrong with having it as a separate page. giginger 21:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-while it may contain OR and Fancruft, I think some of this information is quite useful. The useful info should definitely be merged with DHARMA Initiative. --Kahlfin 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-OR material, as above. Radagast 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have contributed a bit to this page and i do believe there will be a lot more learned from this map, especially if it makes a reappearance in the show. I believe some of the info is important and may not get as much use in the DHARMA Initiative page. Just my 2cents. Thanks.--Romulcah
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, only four edits.
  • Merge. I am for Merging it. There is a lot of fan speculation in the lost articles. We can't delete it all but we can merge it to articles on pure facts about the series. It makes them more interesting this way. Cheers. --CeeKay 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, only twelve edits.
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. Fishhead64 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to want to remove this because parts of it are of a speculative nature is a bad reason. The show is in progress and the information becomes more solid over time; if this kind of thing was not allowed on wikipedia, there wouldnt be an in-progress tvshow template. Also, Jtrost, you have no right to talk down to and discredit people that havent been here long, how would you like it if no one listened to your thoughts and opinions during your first week or two here? Everyone's opinion matters as long as it is presented logically and should not be disregarded merely because one side wants to win the argument. Back to the main point, based on the massive amount of information surrounding this map, I dont believe it is a good idea to shove it into DHARMA, it will grow too fast too quickly. If you're worried that every little thing in lost will have it's own article, then why not just give it a few weeks to see if the map is of actual importance (kind of like Drive Shaft is relevant enough to have an article), if it ends up being just another plot device thrown in by the writers, then we'll merge. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-progress tv show template is not a permission slip to run wild with unverified information and original research. You should still abide by Wikipedia policies, and this article is a textbook example of what an article should not be. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you thought it was appropriate for your argument to put words in my mouth, I'll go ahead and explain. I did NOT say that if we have the template we are allowed to make the article speculative, what I DID say was that the show is in progress, and a few parts of the article will end up being of a speculative nature. If you actually spent the time to read the article, you'd see that most of it is a description of the map, if you're sole argument is that there are some lines that say things like "has been speculated that", then you have no real argument. It is easy to clean it up and make it contain only facts.ArgentiumOutlaw 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the article myself and have removed or changed almost all of the lines that could be considered speculative. Now I'd like anyone still arguing that the article is too speculative to tell me what 'theories' are being presented in the article, or what opinions of the writer are causing this article to be too speculative. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, too much info to be deleted. I think we should merge it with the DHARMA page.- JustPhil 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42) 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now This page is very new, and there might still be more information coming from the show or from the producers. It's premature to delete or merge the article at this point. Let's revisit in a week or two. Elwood00 T | C 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article is full of very usefull info and detailed pictures. It should be merged with the Dharma page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.218.134 (talk • contribs) March 31, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote.
  • Delete However, some info can be merged into the DHARMA article. Danflave 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only reasoning is because the EW article about it said producers of the show actually released a better pic of the map to them, meaning they want it out there, and it will be perhaps a main focal point in upcoming episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.195.2 (talk • contribs) March 31, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote.
  • Comment It can be mentioned, but people cannot publish speculation about it, which is what this article is. Verifiable information about it is already available on the Dharma Initiative article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's too much information on this map to merge it into any of the other Lost articles. Also, I think deleting it is premature; as more information is revealed, this could turn out to be such a significant object that not having an article may seem strange.MysteryDog 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. There is a lot of very good info here and that part shouldn't be (if you'll excuse the pun) lost. But I don't think it merits it's own entry. ultraviolet map is not something that people will really be looking for independently of Lost or the DHARMA Initiative. It lacks any independent context or even a unique name. And heck, if things change in the story and it needs it's own article, can't it just be recreated then? Blade 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote has been counted; although the user has few edits, they are on various different articles.
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative. --Station Attendant 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Stifle 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Information that can't be thrown away, but it doesn't deserve its own article. —Bannus 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above stated nearly or directly above. Konigsberg Monarch 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, user has made only two edits.
  • Keep While there are many reasons why this page should be merged with the DHARMA Initiative, it seems that for now, from the perspective of a fan of the show, that this entry should be its own entity. There are other aspects of the show that have their own pages (Oceanic Airlines or The Hanso Foundation) because they play key roles in the storyline of the series. Based on the information hidden in the map, it seems like it will also be a major factor in the development of the series. Merging this with DHARMA Initiative will probably be appropriate once we have more definate information on the map from the show, such as its history and its purpose. Jeremys779 06:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, very informative for Lost-heads, do NOT delete. Babajobu 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DHARMA Initiative, the Map is an important part of Lost now, so there should be a reference to it. However, I do think most of the speculation should be removed. I'd like to see if the producers have confirmed what is actually written (such the information gleaned from the EW article) on the Map before adding anything from it. --YoungFreud 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider renaming, though. Damsleth 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only include facts, though. Eliminate speculation from the article and take it to a Lost message board. Aren't I Obscure? 13:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, most of this user's couple of dozen edits are minor or trivial.
  • Merge with Dharma initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonian (talk • contribs) April 2, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, very few contributions.
  • Keep I agree with Damsleth. The map might be of significant important in the future episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.50.53 (talk • contribs) April 2, 2006
    • Vote discounted by closing admin, anons do not get a vote
  • Comment Saying that it might play an important role is completely speculative. We cannot build articles on what might happen. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to your comment I agree with you that it is speculative that it might be important. However, I would also like to point out the the creators of Lost tend to put in things that come back later on as something important. For example, early on in the series they saw random polar bears...and then there was the incident with the comic book (I am being vague in case someone does not want to read a spoiler)...and the mention of polar bears on the map. These small details do come back... Jeremys779 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It will definitely be featured in future episodes because in the preview for "S.O.S." following "Dave", it clearly showed Locke trying to trying to recreate the map. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Details of the episodes go into each episode summary, what connects to what is something only the producers know at this point. Some of the information is useful but how exactly does it not fit in the DHARMA article? Arru 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said in an earlier post, it probably will eventually fit into the DHARMA article...but we do not know yet. For all we know, this might have nothing to do with DHARMA but would fit in better with a different article. While I do agree with the general consensus that we should not and cannot include everything, it stands to reason that certain things that will prove to be important (and for anyone who watches LOST, you know what they are) can be left in place temporarily, until their proper "home" is found. Jeremys779 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course there is a lot we do not know but of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings. The burden of proof is on the keepers, or else why isn't there an article on the Numbers, the counter or the execute button? Arru 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings", isn't that speculative in itself? You're assuming it is 100% DHARMA, but we don't know enough about the map to determine even that for sure. Just because it's in The Swan, doesn't mean it belongs in the DHARMA category. As a note to everyone who says info from the map is too speculative, you wont acknowledge even the existence of The Swan as a hatch on the map (because you keep removing those lines from our edits), so you logically shouldnt claim that it belongs in the Dharma category for any other reason than it being on the blast door (and I say that's not enough of a reason to merge with Dharma). Things are so vague at this point, that the map might even end up better fitting a merge with a character or The Hanso Foundation (if it doesn't get merged/deleted by then). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiable facts about/on the map:
  1. Large ? mark in the middle
  2. Octagon
  3. It is drawn on the blast door separating the living quarters from the computer room in the Swan station
  4. A few more text bits can be read on the larger versions (not the one stored at wikipedia)
So, for now the map is an artifact located in the Swan station just like the computer or the counter. Like PKtm says below, everything else in this article is based on the "best try" of the EW staff. Just about everything is vague in Lost, that's its main feature. As stated previously, an entire article about the map is no more warranted than an article about the hatch speaker, or about Locke's legs. Arru 10:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-written and the importance to the series obvious. I see no reason to delete it, the speculation is not that strong. SorryGuy 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, merge later. There's certainly enough data about what's on the map to be worthy of keeping, but merging it right now would be way too much inference on the editors' part. --moof 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's discussion of all the supposed data "on the map" is actually not based on what's visible in the show itself. Instead, it's completely dependent on the more detailed versions of the map provided by EW, etc., which is not verifiable information from the show. When I look at the map that is actually visible in freeze frames from the show itself, I can't see 98% of what is in this article, and I don't believe anyone else can either. -- PKtm 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the original article based on only what was visible in the original image (first link in external links),which is from the show. The extra stuff like the formalae and the time line were written after the other image was found online, so look at the original image and compare with what I wrote originally, you'll see that there is at least a decent amount of info on it. A lot of it also has to do with where the map is, and how it was found in the episode. ArgentiumOutlaw 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, I love Lost, but this has no place being it's own article. Take the important facts and put them into the main Lost/episode synopsis. Should we make pages for anything that has a lot of visual information (rooms, records in the hatch)? Of course not. Radagast83 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that the article is up for deletion is because people say it has a lot of speculation. Either way, I think that this diagram is far more important than any other visual we've seen in the show yet (yes, its more important than the records), this map basically changes everything for the survivors, it offers the beginning of some explanation as to why they are where they are, and possibly where they are (much more so than the mysterious and rather vague dharma orientation video). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is a large portion of speculative content and that the map, and what is currently known about it, does not deserve an entire article of its own. Also, the title ("Ultraviolet map") is a disaster. Arru 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as a separate article. At this time, there's little-to-no Verifiable encyclopedic content here which deserves its own entry. The image appeared for a brief split-second in one episode, was seen by only one character and has had no impact on the story (yet.) A section about the "map" already exists at The Dharma Initiative, and a very limited amount of this material may be included there, minus the Original Research "analysis"-- unless such analysis can be cited to an external published source (not merely a fan site!) I'm to understand that Entertainment Weekly magazine ran an article on the map, which can serve as one, limited source. HOWEVER: the map is clearly intended by the writing staff to provide water-cooler speculation, thus extreme care should be taken when including it, as much of its scribblings may merely be fan-entertainment, and not appropriate to Wikipedia. Writer Javier Grillo-Marxuach revealed some hints about it in a recent chat with TheComicsReview.com, which can also be sourced. Finally, remember the "mural" in the station, which likewise created a speculative-frenzy, but has never played a part in the series.--LeflymanTalk 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was stated explicitly in the EW article that they got the image of the map from the producers of Lost. It is official...not fanart. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love lost. i read these pages so i can discover more and i enjoyed this because i wanted to know what this wall said with out refining the picture and this helped me.
  • Keep and Rename - Although the article admittedly started out as much fancruft (which is when it'd been listed AfD), it has since grown significantly past that. The information contained in it now is from the show or from the citable source of the EW article (which analysed and translated much of the map). Also from previews, the map will figure prominantly in next week's episode so much of the information here will likely be verified by that, and it would be a pain to then recreate all of it after a deletion. However, the article should certainly be renamed as the current name is both non-distinct (what does "ultraviolet map" even mean?) and incorrect (it's blacklight, not ultraviolet). Maelwys 13:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, blacklight and ultraviolet light are synonyms. Stifle
  • Delete A map that appears for 20 seconds in one episode of TV series is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Rillian 20:12, 6 April 2006 (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/Ultraviolet_map&oldid=1079975718"