Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deus ex machina examples

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 no consensus to delete. A merge seems complicated but it seems to have some support. W.marsh 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of deus ex machina examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Every single one of these is an item of original research literary analysis, and the list as a whole is utterly indiscriminate in scope, considering how widespread this device is. Recently closed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series, as delete. This is just as original in its research with an even more indiscriminate scope. I would like a shorter list of examples that have sources to identify each, but without sources this fails WP:OR and WP:V. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pointless and never-to-be-completed lists. Vizjim 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V (no sources, if that's even possible with an article like this), fails WP:OR and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a subjective, and thus infinite and indiscriminate, list which ipso facto contains original research and is therefore unverifiable (how's that for a collection?). No need even to merge, since the article on deus ex machinas (deii ex machina?) already names a couple. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Deus ex machina after having trimmed 80-95% of the list, I don't think anyone wants to read over 200 of these --WikiSlasher 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suddenly, without any warning, a giant zorg monster beamed down and deleted this list! Grutness...wha? 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • hahaha --WikiSlasher 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep though I see i shall be overruled. This is a major plot device, and notable as such, and a list of works which have them, though long, should be useful. Im not sure A-Z is the bast way to go, but rather by genre. DGG 06:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, although the point that's been raised a couple of times here is that this list is somewhat original research-y. What I know about literature studies can be written on a biscuit, but I'm not convinced that scholars would agree that each of these is a deus ex machina. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps that very statement is OR on your part--the criterion is a little slippery. :)DGG 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. If literature theorists 1, 2 and 3 all argue that some of the contents of this list are legitimate deus ex machinas, then all that remains is to hunt up citations for that and call that part of the list verifiable (what to do with said verifiable list is anyone's guess, but it's verifiable at least). If, however, the only reason that a particular deux ex machina is included here is because an editor acting on their own behalf felt that it was one, then it's Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to the past now! Delete Danny Lilithborne 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as by WikiSlasher Alf photoman 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the originator of the article pick 20 or so examples, from classic and modern fiction, merge it then lock it. 144.87.143.3 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the list should be copied to a subpage of the talk page of the main page of the topic so it can be discussed further which ones are valuable, if 1 person picks the 20 someone will scream "Hey why didn't you include that one!" and stuff. --WikiSlasher 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Per WP:IAR, a useful article that I have used several times in the past. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs)
  • Usefulness is not a keep argument. Lots of useful things violate WP:NOT. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have no opinion on whether this meets the guidelines for keeping. However I find this article very useful because examples are the best way to learn just what is a "Deus Ex Machina". So, it is a very useful article. As others have said above, though, it may not meet the guidelines. so I don't know.Spebudmak 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've copied it to Talk:Deus ex machina/List of deus ex machina examples in case it gets deleted so we can extract some examples for the main article. --WikiSlasher 01:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remember that whatever gets included needs to be sourced, so none of these can be used as-is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into deus ex machina and remove all but the most important and significant examples. Jeff Silvers 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per WikiSlasher, 144.87.143.3, and Jeff Silvers above. --130.126.80.219 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jeff Silvers. WMMartin 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge I was the person that originally split off the list from Deus Ex Machina in the first place in order to make Deus ex Machina a better article. The problem the article had before was even if someone with some sense cut down the list to a few notable examples, people would add in their own pet examples from their favorite work of fiction. You can look at Talk:Deus_ex_machina to get some background on that discussion. I think the list page could be ok if certain guidelines were honored for any examples added to the list, such as those in the previous discussion. Regardless, I hope that the list does not get blindly merged into Deus ex machina, since that article already has a couple of very strong examples in the text. The demiurge 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't there be a comment or two (to make sure people see it) in the edit window like <--DO NOT ADD ANY EXAMPLES TO THIS ARTICLE UNLESS APPROVED BY OTHER EDITORS ON THE TALK PAGE--> and just revert anything without a source? It might be too much to ask people to keep track of every change though I guess. Maybe a strict rule of "no source, no mention in article" might be a good idea. --WikiSlasher 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that I don't mind if the article is kept, but then all disputed examples need to be shown the door. --WikiSlasher 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, So because a list can't be completed we should just throw away all the information gathered? This list should be kept, the list is not entirely pointless and wikipedia is a collection of information which may regard fiction, so this list should be acceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.212.221 (talk • contribs)

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.