Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graboid (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graboid

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

Previous nomination closed no consensus and in the interim no new potential sources appear to have emerged. There is no indication that this fictional creature is independently notable. Those few sources which mention it do so either completely in an in-universe capacity (describing the plots of one or more of the films or the TV series) or mention the creature in passing. It fails both the general notability guideline and the guideline for writing about fiction. There is no question that the Tremors films are notable. However, the notability of a work of fiction does not mean that every aspect or element within that work of fiction is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Graboid is sufficiently notable within the scope of WP:WAF. There is sufficient viable content to warrant its own article: incorporation into a "Tremors" article would be problematic given the weight of the article and the fact that there are multiple "Tremors" articles (movies, TV series, etc.) Taroaldo (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the plot summaries or general descriptions of the film or TV show can include an explanatory sentence or two on the in-universe role that these creatures played within the particular iteration of the franchise, if they don't already. This article is almost entirely primary information drawn from the films. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is pretty well nothing but in-universe fancruft. Reyk _YO! 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Fancruft 'is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies'. Half of Wikipedia could indiscriminately be labeled fancruft or some other version of "cruft". Taroaldo (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with Otto4711, the articles about the various films are not so long as to exclude detail of how the various creatures are different in each of them. Apart from fans of the films, which are indeed fun films, I don't think they have any notability beyond the franchise unlike say H.R. Giger's Alien or the kind of sources that can be found for it (Alien (Alien franchise), though it is also flawed). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central element/monster from a series spanning 5 films and a TV show is notable enough for me. Google Books shows some coverage, including the fact that one of these things is exhibited at a film history museum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Pine, California Film History Museum does indeed have several props from the movies, I see.[1] Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the films or TV series is not inherited by every fictional component of the films or series. "Some coverage" is not the standard for notability. Coverage that is significantly about the subject is. A scattered sentence or two or an isolated paragraph do not constitute significant coverage. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article clearly meets the notability requirements in this editor's opinion, and has a good variety of valid references from independent and reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the "valid references". Chick Flicks includes 4 paragraphs of plot description in a 259 page book. Click or Treat includes one paragraph in a 175 page book. "Home Video's Latest Outlet: Computers" includes one sentence in a 30+ paragraph article. "TREMORS Graboid Marquette" is a press release. This does not constitute "significant coverage", the standard for notability. "It was mentioned in a book or a magazine article" is not the standard for notability. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [2][3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 is a typical TV Guide-style plot summary/meet the show article that mentions this fictional creature only in in-universe terms. 2 appears to be promotional material produced by or in conjunction with the channel which aired the series. Both are hosted on a site that is of dubious reliability as a source. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a nasty encounter with a graboid at some point? :) Taroaldo (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, UGO Networks is owned by Hearst, and is an RS. It may be in conjunction wit h the TV show or something, in which case it wouldn't be independant. I didn't see anything that said that was so, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer is owned by a media conglomerate too, which doesn't make it a reliable source. Hearst publications have a pretty long and checkered career of yellow journalism (and are credited with starting a war or two through propaganda) so merely being owned by a name brand conglomerate doesn't confer notability. Otto4711 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about 50-100 years ago? Anyways, I think UGO is considered reliable. Would you retract the AfD if it was shown to be reliable? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources is the standard that I have always hewn to in AFD discussions. Otto4711 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sources do meet significant and reliable (and maybe even independant). They're largely in universe, but I don't think that's discussed in NOTE, or is given as a reason to delete in WAF (which I haven't looked at in about 2-3 years). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do I think that the sources exist? Yes. But I do not think that there will be any effort to find and implement them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - linking element within movie/tv franchise, appears to be significant coverage here, for example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as THE central plot device in an entire film series, and per precedent set by other plot device articles that have such sourcability in Books, News, and Scholar. WP:NOEFFORT is a reason to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy section only deals in whether or not people have expanded the article, not established notability. There is a series article for Tremors; being a plot device for an entire film series warrants mention in the series article, not a separate article. Notability has not been established, and that's excellent reason to propose deletion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not wanting to WP:WAX, but as sources toward notability are available and have been spoken toward up above, your opinion bumps up against such articles as Romulan, United Federation of Planets, Federation Council (Star Trek), Millenium Falcon and Starship Enterprise et al. Plot devices of film series can indeed merit individual articles, and then simply be mentioned in the main series article with a link to the specific article, just as has been done for these. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Sarek --Webwizard (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2010 (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.