Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire in entertainment

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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.