Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire in entertainment: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:35, 6 February 2023

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 July 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Only argument to keep has been a bizarre WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so satisfied there is consensus to delete this article at this time. KaisaL (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in entertainment

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

The article is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of places where fire appears in entertainment (in effect, the bad kind of WP:IPC). It is clear WP:OR to assemble such a list based only on primary sources. Secondary sources are required, per WP:PSTS, and also more specifically per this RfC. There is no evidence that this list is discussed in reliable sources, and even if the topic of fire in entertainment were discussed in such places, it is extremely unlikely that the article would look anything like the present form if it were to be rewritten in a policy-compliant manner. I should add that this article has been tagged for notability since December, it was just WP:PRODded, although the prod was contested by the author without addressing the reason for the PROD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:OR. Unsourced and barely comprehensible information about the use of fire as a thematic element in media, followed a completely arbitrary list of examples that provide no indication of the intended topic, is not an encyclopedia article. (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article.) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research and completely arbitrary. I can think of dozens of films with fire in not on that list - pretty much every action film for one – except as with many of the entries their inclusion would be trivial and arbitrary. Does not belong on WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How indiscriminate is List of chemists? Like also in that list an encyclopedia of course can arrange their fully notable articles how it wants, not only alphabetically. Your opinion fully notable artistic elements (even used in a non-trivial symbolic way) are not notable enough for their art work's sorting arrangement obviously have other reasons and I want to know them. #empathy --MathLine (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List of chemists has pretty clear inclusion criteria... it's a list of chemists. Apples and oranges. And the rest of your comment makes almost no sense. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the intro appears to be OR without references, and the two references do not float the boat, so to speak.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 July 4}}</noinclude>
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''delete'''. Only argument to keep has been a bizarre [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], so satisfied there is consensus to delete this article at this time. [[User:KaisaL|KaisaL]] ([[User talk:KaisaL|talk]]) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 ===[[Fire in entertainment]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
 :{{la|Fire in entertainment}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire in entertainment|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 26#{{anchorencode:Fire in entertainment}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fire_in_entertainment Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 6: / Line 14: @@
 The article is a [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] list of places where fire appears in entertainment (in effect, the bad kind of [[WP:IPC]]).  It is clear [[WP:OR]] to assemble such a list based only on primary sources.  Secondary sources are required, per [[WP:PSTS]], and also more specifically per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63#popular-culture-RfC this RfC].  There is no evidence that this list is discussed in reliable sources, and even if the topic of fire in entertainment were discussed in such places, it is extremely unlikely that the article would look anything like the present form if it were to be rewritten in a policy-compliant manner.  I should add that this article has been tagged for notability since December, it was just [[WP:PROD]]ded, although the prod was contested by the author without addressing the reason for the PROD.  [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 10:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture|list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 10:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)</small>
-*'''Delete'''. Violates [[WP:OR]]. Unsourced information about the use of fire as a thematic element in media, followed a completely arbitrary list of examples that provide no indication of the intended topic, is not an encyclopedia article. (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article.) --<font face="Book Antiqua">[[User:Kinu|<font color="blue"><strong>Kinu</strong></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Kinu|<font color="red">''t''</font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kinu|<font color="red">''c''</font>]]</sub></font> 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. Violates [[WP:OR]]. Unsourced and barely comprehensible information about the use of fire as a thematic element in media, followed a completely arbitrary list of examples that provide no indication of the intended topic, is not an encyclopedia article. (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article.) --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;">[[User:Kinu|<span style="color:blue;"><strong>Kinu</strong></span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Kinu|<span style="color:red;">''t''</span>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kinu|<span style="color:red;">''c''</span>]]</sub></span> 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
+* '''delete''' as original research and completely arbitrary. I can think of dozens of films with fire in not on that list - pretty much every action film for one – except as with many of the entries their inclusion would be trivial and arbitrary. Does not belong on WP.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 11:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. How indiscriminate is [[List of chemists]]? Like also in that list an encyclopedia of course can arrange their fully notable articles how it wants, not only alphabetically. Your opinion fully notable artistic elements (even used in a non-trivial symbolic way) are not notable enough for their art work's sorting arrangement obviously have other reasons and I want to know them. #empathy --[[User:MathLine|MathLine]] ([[User talk:MathLine|talk]]) 20:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
+**[[List of chemists]] has pretty clear inclusion criteria... it's a list of chemists. Apples and oranges. And the rest of your comment makes almost no sense. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;">[[User:Kinu|<span style="color:blue;"><strong>Kinu</strong></span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Kinu|<span style="color:red;">''t''</span>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kinu|<span style="color:red;">''c''</span>]]</sub></span> 20:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' the intro appears to be OR without references, and the two references do not float the boat, so to speak.[[User:HappyValleyEditor|HappyValleyEditor]] ([[User talk:HappyValleyEditor|talk]]) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
+{{clear}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>