Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes in Blue Velvet

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 as original research. Sourced content can be merged back into the original article. As tempting as it is for perceptive editors to write about themes in fictional works that may seem obvious, it's still OR. Any such critical analysis needs to be meticulously sourced. Erik, if you can't find the original sourced edits in the article history, let me know and I'll get the text for you from the deleted versions. Daniel Case 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes in Blue Velvet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unnecessary fork from Blue Velvet#Themes, and some Original Research. This topic is already discussed in enough detail in the main article, no need for a seperate article. Masaruemoto 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect back into the main film article. Lugnuts 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fork/excessive detail. Wikipedia should provide introductions to topics, so as to meet the reference needs of the average person, not the most detailed possible survey, so as to meet the needs of people with the most specialised interests. Greg Grahame 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge back into the main article. Wikipedia is not a film studies course; we don't need a series of extensive articles about 'Themes in X' beyond what's contained in X's main article. Terraxos 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article presents further information not contained in the Blue Velvet article. Inserting it all into the article would only result in a messy, un orderly and incoherent mess. BlueVelvet86 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merging. I would like to add an anonymous and therefore irrelevant vote for deletion, and also note that this is not only original research, but poorly-done original research. It reads like a first-year film studies paper. (anon)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content relevant to the first two references (which I just created a section for to see the journals) to Blue Velvet. It seems that removing the uncited content would create an unnecessarily short article, so per WP:CFORK, the cited content should be placed on the film article. I would not oppose a recreation of this article that was fully sourced -- there should be plenty of journals and articles exploring the themes of a David Lynch film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:19, 9 July 2007 (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.