| Revision as of 01:50, 29 July 2019 editZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,878 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:59, 29 July 2019 edit undoLightburst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,841 edits KeepNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''Redirect''' Overly detailed lists with information like {{tq|''A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men.''}} are not enough to make an exception to the long-standing "Don't make standalone 'In popular culture' articles". Andrew Davidson misrepresents (deliberately?) what IPCA says above, since '''before''' splitting out articles like this meaningless fancrufty mentions are supposed to be trimmed; additionally, ] isn't even that long -- somewhat more than half the article text appears to currently be devoted to "In other media", and so that should have been trimmed ''before'' consensus was sought to create this fork article. ] (<small>]]</small>) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC) | *'''Redirect''' Overly detailed lists with information like {{tq|''A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men.''}} are not enough to make an exception to the long-standing "Don't make standalone 'In popular culture' articles". Andrew Davidson misrepresents (deliberately?) what IPCA says above, since '''before''' splitting out articles like this meaningless fancrufty mentions are supposed to be trimmed; additionally, ] isn't even that long -- somewhat more than half the article text appears to currently be devoted to "In other media", and so that should have been trimmed ''before'' consensus was sought to create this fork article. ] (<small>]]</small>) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :* ] is the basis of the nomination and it is nonsensical in several ways. In the first place, this is not an "in popular culture" article. Such articles take a topic which is not normally considered popular culture, such as ], and then focus on the appearance of that person or topic in pop cultural works. So, ] tells us about the appearance of that character in movies such as ] and ]. The topic in question in this case is a comic book character which is pop culture to start with. It's just a split between their numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics, such as animations, live-action movies, action figures or whatever. Not the same thing. ] (]) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC) | :* ] is the basis of the nomination and it is nonsensical in several ways. In the first place, this is not an "in popular culture" article. Such articles take a topic which is not normally considered popular culture, such as ], and then focus on the appearance of that person or topic in pop cultural works. So, ] tells us about the appearance of that character in movies such as ] and ]. The topic in question in this case is a comic book character which is pop culture to start with. It's just a split between their numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics, such as animations, live-action movies, action figures or whatever. Not the same thing. ] (]) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Andrew D. makes a strong case for "keep". The nomination points to ] as a rationale. However I do not see that ] states that the subject is not allowed in its present form. ] (]) 01:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:59, 29 July 2019
Sentinel in other media
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Sentinel in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:IPCA, spinouts like this are not allowed. The information should be pruned, not disposed of in a separate article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IPCA says clearly that "when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles." and so the nomination's claim that this is "not allowed" seems to be quite false. The title of the page in question might be improved though as it's not clear because Sentinel is a case where extensive disambiguation is required. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know it's like talking to a brick wall, but if you read the other parts of it, it says "Don't split the section out if you think it would be likely to get deleted." An article that is almost entirely original research is likely to get deleted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Andrew, Zxcvbnm's interpretation of IPCA is correct, and either you know it and are deliberately pretending not to, or you don't, which is arguably worse. There's nothing "clear" about your interpretation at all -- in fact one needs to go well out of one's way to extract that interpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- ZXCVBNM's position is illogical because it is begging the question and a circular argument. He asserts that the article in question ought be deleted because it is not allowed and that it is not allowed because it ought to be deleted. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to start Wikilawyering and getting into semantics. I think any typical editor would understand the gist of what I said.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep either here or the other article. I don't see any reason why it can't stay in the main article. Dream Focus 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect Overly detailed lists with information like
A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men.
are not enough to make an exception to the long-standing "Don't make standalone 'In popular culture' articles". Andrew Davidson misrepresents (deliberately?) what IPCA says above, since before splitting out articles like this meaningless fancrufty mentions are supposed to be trimmed; additionally, Sentinel (comics) isn't even that long -- somewhat more than half the article text appears to currently be devoted to "In other media", and so that should have been trimmed before consensus was sought to create this fork article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:IPCA is the basis of the nomination and it is nonsensical in several ways. In the first place, this is not an "in popular culture" article. Such articles take a topic which is not normally considered popular culture, such as Abraham Lincoln, and then focus on the appearance of that person or topic in pop cultural works. So, Abraham Lincoln in popular culture tells us about the appearance of that character in movies such as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. The topic in question in this case is a comic book character which is pop culture to start with. It's just a split between their numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics, such as animations, live-action movies, action figures or whatever. Not the same thing. Andrew D. (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Andrew D. makes a strong case for "keep". The nomination points to WP:IPCA as a rationale. However I do not see that WP:IPCA states that the subject is not allowed in its present form. Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)