Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Supreme Dalek

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Reason I recommended this article for VfD: Poorly written fancruft, probably vanity for someone's un-notable online fantasy story. —ExplorerCDT 22:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete —ExplorerCDT 22:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This could use some cleanup, but Dr. Who trivia certaintly belongs here. Samboy 22:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) Merge in to Dalek Ranks Samboy 00:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not cleanup and this article clearly belongs. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. One person's fancruft is another person's scholarship. Dr Zen 01:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dalek or List of Daleky topics or something. --fvw* 01:58, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • Delete: One big Dalek homeworld. No break outs of minor details of a fiction, please. Geogre 02:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Can I quote you on that when I list minor details of Gulliver's Travels on VfD? Dr Zen 02:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Nominate one, if you can find it, and let's see what the community thinks. To my knowledge, there are no break outs of minor elements from GT. Geogre 04:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Minor is in the eye of the beholder. As it happens, I'm all for articles on minor details from Gulliver and won't be listing anything, not even Glumdalclitch, who is, as far as minor goes, fairly minor.Dr Zen 06:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Feel free, if you wish. However, let's see how many of these are blue: Flimnap, Blefuscu, Balinbari, Munodi, Laputa, Houhouyhynm, Sorel mare, Yahoo with the character, Brobdingnag. Ok. Now, some of those are nations in GT. Now, given the fact that GT has had 270 years of being read and has never faded from the list of books that every literate person should read, let's compare it to the level of detail present for Dr. Who, Dragonball Z and whatever that Gundarm thing is, not to mention Neopets. To get to the level of break out involved, one would not be writing about Little Endian, but Jester in the court of Brobdingnag and Sorcerer's mirror in Laputa. I.e. a Pikachu article is one thing, but one for every "gym" in a fictive world that is commercially produced, where there is a commercial interest in making sure that there are always new ones? These are articles about small details from a few episodes, comparing them to any stable work of fiction, one that is accessible to any, as opposed to having aired on television and requiring the purchase of special video tapes, etc., is absurd. Geogre 14:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I'd like to see more of those links be blue, actually. Breakouts of information are a good thing, and a fine goal for Wikipedia. The argument about Doctor Who not counting because video tapes are special and difficult to access isn't particularly convincing. Factitious 17:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute. We have articles on every Pokemon, and every different kind of dalek, but no article on Houhouyhynm? That's outrageous. Really. If I were a first time user and someone pointed that out to me I'd have a very low opinion of Wikipedia indeed. -R. fiend 19:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • My mistake (or Geogre's mistake really). Misspelled it, it's Houyhnhnm and it has a pitifully small stub (one that would never stay so short if it had been about Sailor Moon). Now is Houhouyhynm a common enough misspelling to make a redirect? -R. fiend 19:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The mistake was mine, I'm sure. I used to never mispell that. I can't even think, though, of what would be an adequate item from GT that could compare to a single Neopet, Pokemon, Digimon, etc. Do we have an article on Hodge, Samuel Johnson's cat? Do we have one on the cat of Thomas Gray that drowned trying to eat a goldfish? Further, the problem with breakouts is that you have to already know it to find it! Let's imagine an article on Hodge. Now, if you know that's Johnson's cat, you find it and find out that...it's Johnson's cat, and you know it because there are two lines to refer to it, so the article would repeat those two lines. Is anyone else ever going to know to search for Hodge? No. So what does the article do? It allows the encyclpedic equivalent of "Hey, 'member when Butters turned int Dr. Chaos? That was so cool!" Geogre 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Remember when Johnson told the joke about the gentleman who shot cats? That was so cool! Gdr 00:55, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC) (P.S. You know that we do have an article on Hodge the Cat, right?)
          • Um, no, we don't. We do have an excerpt from Life of Johnson under that title, but calling it an "article" would be just too much of a stretch. another for VfD or cleanup or transwiki... -R. fiend 01:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Ugh! We have a Hodge the Cat? What a world. Its contents make the point I was striving for, too. You have to know everything in the article to search for the article. (I'm an "18th century I" person, and it used to be a joke that orals could throw a question at you like "What was Johnson's cat's name." As a joke we would remind each other that Johnson's cat was Hodge and Pope's dog(s) was Bounce.) Geogre 04:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The problem is, Geogre, that we cannot put our fingers on what level of granularity is too much. For some, Orchard Road is too much, but Twombly, Maine is untouchable. For others, there is not an elf in LotR that is not worth mention. For yet others, Dr Johnson's cat is notable, but the high school they learned about it in isn't. Let's not even begin to think about the recording career of Ashlee Simpson, which is covered at almost novella length. It's all rather arbitrary. I know that Anthony DiPierro believes we should have articles on every person living who is verifiable (I hope I'm not misquoting him) and most things in fiction, I think, so long as they are "real". His criteria are at least definitive. I understand and appreciate, although I don't share, your belief that there should be a standard of wider applicability for articles, but as you note this does tend to bias the encyclopaedia towards those things that have been around a long time (whatever level of notice they have garnered). I'm not suggesting that such a bias is a good or a bad thing, but I do wonder whether, given the space we have and the nature of the project, some granularity might not be considered a "good thing".Dr Zen 07:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Dalek types or Doctor Who villains or soemthing. 132.205.15.43 03:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:23, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Esoteric fancruft. Indrian 06:38, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. More F.E.C.E.S. Merge some to daleks if someone wants to. Comparison to Gulliver's Travels is ridiculous. It's not as if Lilliput has spawned an English word meaning "small" or any such nonsense. That would be just plain crazy. -R. fiend 06:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't buy the 'fancruft' argument. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 08:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge or exterminate. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is already an article about this character, under the name Dalek Supreme. Merge and redirect to it, not to Dalek. How is it possible that so many people have weighed in on this topic already without noticing the obvious duplication of information? Factitious 17:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete Nothing here that couldn't be said in Dalek. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dalek Ranks. I have completed the merge. The Steve 07:55, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge Dalek Ranks with Dalek. DreamGuy 22:03, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Supreme_Dalek&oldid=1141941316"