Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proton pack (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. henrik•talk 07:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proton pack

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Proton pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. References listed are merely plot details from the film, two Ghostbusters fan pages, and an anecdotal story about a four-year-old who asked for the device for Christmas.

Other details are trivia about the props from the movie:

  • "The proton pack props from the Ghostbusters movies are some of the most wanted and collectible props ever made. "
  • "Some of the packs from Ghostbusters I were used in the follow-up Ghostbusters II; these packs were slightly redressed with a black crank knob and thinner ribbon cable."
  • "The proton pack worn by Bill Murray during his acceptance speech at the 2010 Scream Awards was a reproduction semi-hero pack made by Sean Bishop." Sottolacqua (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ghostbusters is a widely-known fictional scenario, and so are some of its main events and devices. Some people DO want information about events and people and objects in widely-known fictional scenarios, particularly if that scenario does not have its own Wiki. Often, one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter: e.g. I have no interest in football, but I do not go around deleting football items. Compare the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proton pack. Likewise, I feel that pages Slime Blower and Ghost trap should be restored. We do not need a rule "no details about anything fictional". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT. This does not address the article's failure to meet WP:GNG and lack of references asserting notability. NFL, football, soccer, etc. meet WP:GNG. A prop from a movie that is not independently notable from the movie itself does not meet WP:GNG. Lack of a Ghostbusters wiki independent of Wikipedia is not criteria for inclusion here. The article is nothing more than WP:PLOT, WP:CRUFT observations of the aesthetics of the prop, and a description of the construction of the prop during production of the films. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anthony Appleyard is right only when he says that Often, one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter. That's why we have the general notability guideline, which contains various criteria defined and approved by the whole WP community, as a standard to decide whether a topic deserves an article or not, to ensure that articles won't be delete just because "someone" doesn't "like" them, or kept just because "someone" "likes" them (as Anthony Appleyard does, and that's why his comment won't matter at all).Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with the concerns by Sottolacqua, it fails the WP:GNG and has unreliable sources. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough real-world coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see this so-called "real world coverage" in the article. Articles won't be kept just because of unsubstanciated comments...Everyone can claim "real world coverage" for anything while not bothering to actually show it...that would be too easy. On afds, we don't need random unsubstanciated claims, we need sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re WP:ILIKEIT: And WP:MANY_OTHERS_LIKE_IT, enough people to constitute enough interest base to keep such information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, no real-world coverage, no reliable third party sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ghostbusters. While it is an important part of a well known media franchise, it lacks the notability to have its own seperate article. The sources provided are woefully inadequate, as the majority of them are to non-reliable sources such as youtube videos or fansite message boards. Rorshacma (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.. this article was fascinating and I am not even really a ghostbusters fan. If these types of well sourced articles continue to be deleted by dullards, then wikipedia will be boring.--72.211.147.156 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 1) "fascinating" is your own personal judgment. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument because wikipedia is not your personal blog. Your personal opinion has nothing to do here, articles are not kept because one merely "likes" them, but because they pass the general notability guideline, and it is not the case here.
      2) "well sourced": completely wrong> With only primary sources and message boards, this artiucle is not sourced at all and fails WP:GNG.
      3) "dullards": a personal attack. If you think this is how you will keep this article, you're seriously mistaken.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix through regular editing. Article has existed since 2005 and has seen multiple edits by numerous editors, showing continued contributor interest in the topic. It was kept after an 2007 AFD, with the caveat that while the article needed work it had become the center of content disputes... and yes... it still needs work. As sources are available showing this topic as being referenced in both related and unrelated fields, we have something that has now become part of popular culture. We have it covered in news and books and it would seem the deletion request is based more upon the problems with the article's curent state, and a need for inclusion of better sources. My thought here is that it is far better to address adressable issues than it is to delete an article on what has arguably become a notable topic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a supposed "user interest" is 1) perfectly unquantifiable (to what do you compare it? which tools were used? etc), thus unreliable and unusable in an AfD, and 2) derives from WP:ILIKEIT and thus is completely useless here. An article isn't kept just because undefined "users" updated it, but because it passes the general notability guideline in that it has a significant coverage in independant third party sources, which is not the case here. You refer to "sources" that don't exist and don't appear on the article...you don't use imaginary "sources" to keep an article. You claim "arguably become a notable topic", but I don't see any argument in favor of this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Editors do not need a calculator or ouija board to be able to compare the busy edit history[1] of this article to some of the other 6,980,131 en.Wikipedia articles that might have only one or two edits over similar years-long periods. Simply put, editors can look and compare for themselves to see that contributing editors ARE concerned with this article's topic. And "arguably notable" is a reference to those "arguments" being made here toward notability AND an offered search which finds the topic as having become part of enduring cinematic history... even leaking over into popular culture. And with respects to those who have opined a delete based upon current sourcing, that so many available sources have not been used does not mean we automatically delete a notable topic because of that lack, as notability is dependent upon sources toward a topic being available... and NOT upon their immediate use as citations. The concerns listed in your nomination statement all look to be addressable issues with format and style... issues that can be addressed through regular editiing and do not require deletion. For such issues, we have means of correction other than deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1)You do realize, of course, that arbitrarily comparing the number of edits between articles that have absolutely nothing in common and may not even require the same amount of work or mobilize the same category of editors (mere fans of a popular movie are likely to be more numerous on WP than film study/history/... researchers with PhD, for example, yet which of those can provide the most encyclopedical and academic content ?) is completely useless in an AfD. What matters is whether articles meet WP:GNG, and WP:GNG never set a precise number of edits beyond wich a topic becomes "notable". A supposed "user interest" based only on numbers and which deliberately ignores any other parameter (including the nature of users and edits) is of course sheer manipulation in an attempt to divert this AfD for the real issue raised by the nomination, that is, that the topic is not notable as per the GNG (and not per ghostbusters fans, who don't own WP and don't represent the community) and that it is not possible to find enough sources to make it notable. Statistics on editorial issues are wrong, because they can so easily be manipulated toward a certain agenda, as you proved it here, and as they equate to WP:ILIKEIT, it won't be discussed anymore and won't be taken into account.
          2) And no, I didn't see a single "argument being made here toward notability". Random users making the unsubstanciated claim that "the topic as having become part of enduring cinematic history" is just personal opinion, ie WP:ILIKEIT. Notability is not "what ghostbusters fans like", but the criteria defined in the community-approved general notability guideline, which asks for "significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail, more than a trivial mention) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And sorry, but I don't see this coverage. I took a look at the discussion you pointed out, and I didn't see any "significant coverage" or sources that go beyond a mere anecdotal mention...All are books in which, out of hundreds of pages, the word "proton pack" appears only once and is not even discussed. Besides, none of these so-called sources state that proton packs have "become part of enduring cinematic history"; you've just pieced together a few books in which you could find the word "proton pack" once, and then you unilaterally made the claim that it meant it became "part of enduring cinematic history". Do you know what this is ? original research by synthesis and source manipulation. If you only want to keep this article so that you can post original research, then no, it won't be kept.
          The concerns listed in the nomination statement are not "addressable issues with format and style... issues that can be addressed through regular editiing", because the concerns are that the article is not notable and doesn't have a single reliable source establishing notability, which is the case, and which cannot be solved just with "format and style editing". It is useless to claim that "notability is dependent upon sources toward a topic being available", if you don't even bother to make these sources available. AfDs do not keep articles on mere assumptions. It's not enough to say "I'm sure sources exist", you have to show them. And it's not enough either to find a bunch of unreliable sources that blatantly ignore the WP:GNG standards ("more than a trivial mention") and then unilaterally declare the topic "notable".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The comparison was made only to show that their IS editorial interest in the subject, and that it is through such editorial interest that addressable issues become addressed... your personally feeling them unadressable aside. What you may not wish to realize or accept is that while the GNG is often the easiest way to gauge something being worthy of note, it is not the sole manner by which we might measure notability. For fictional devices we can use the common sense advised by all guidelines and look to how and why such devices have ingrained themselves into our culture. If we lack sources offering in-depth commentary or analysis of a prop device, we may still accept the hundreds or thousands of less-than-in-depth mentions, as long as they are IN reliable secondary sources and offer verifiability of information provided in the articles for our readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1) And as I said, a so-called "editorial interest" MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. First, "editorial interest" equates to WP:ILIKEIT. Even with a million edits since 1999 the article would still not be notable, because you're throwing a random number and arbitrarily comparing it to other articles that have nothing in common in scope and nature of edits/participants. As I told you, a million of edits from random users that just happen to be fans of a movie won't equal the encyclopedic quality of 10 edits from a PhD holder. Wikipedia does establish a hierarchy between topics, because yes, there are some things that Wikipedia is not, that's why we have WP:GNG, and last time I checked, a so-called "user interest" was not among the criteria identifying a notable topic.
              2) WP:GNG is the sole communtity-approved tool to establish notability, it is the perfect example of a community-wide compromise that allows article to be judged, not according to just one user, but according to principles to which the whole community adheres. Why should we judge this article according only to your common sense about "user interest" ? I don't agree with your "common sense", because it is completly unsubstanciated. My common sense tells me than an editorial dispute is never going to be solved with a mere comparison of numbers: you're taking raw numbers and arbitrarily attributing them an editorial meaning, but you deliberately ignore parameters such as the encyclopedic nature of edits and editors (again, movie fans vs PhDs), which are vital for an editorial issue. Oh, and where did you see that fiction wasn't concerned by WP:GNG? On the contrary, the GNG is based a lot on issues caused by fiction. There is absolutely no reason not to use GNG on fiction, just because it prevents fans of ghostbusters to do just whatever they want. The GNG was written by the whole community, as a consensus between fiction enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts, who've thought for years about all the implications of the meaning of "notability" on WP. The GNG is common sense, and when you start claiming "common sense" to go against the GNG, then there is a problem. You were quick to throw the essay about common sense to my face, but you forgot to quote a very important part of it: "There is no common sense. When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense."
              3) "we may still accept the hundreds or thousands of less-than-in-depth mentions, as long as they are IN reliable secondary sources and offer verifiability of information provided in the articles for our readers" -> No, because this is an AfD, in which an issue of notability was raised, and notability is about "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", not random occurences of a word in random databases. Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, back to shouting Folken? I'll respond succinctly and not make this a TLDR rant. 1) We do well to remember that it is through editorial interest in a subject that topics are improved. To ignore the truth of that quite obvious statement is to ignore how an encyclopedia is built. To point to an essay when I state the obvious is unhelpful. 2) I am in no way denying that the GNG is the easiest way by which to determine notability. I have simply stated that it is not the sole means, as even it itself acknowledges that there are occasional exceptions to itself. 3) And yes, this AFD is discussing notability... but that discussion is allowed to consider this topic being an allowable exception in the lack of SIGCOV if we postualte that this topic fails that guideline. And in making an assertion that the GNG is failed, and in considering this topic as a possible exception to that guideline, everything within the article must still be verifiable in a reliable source even if that source itself does not provide the wished-for SIGCOV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're the only one shouting. The GNG is the only means of examining notability, otherwise it's just WP:ILIKEIT, as you proved here. You keep saying the article should be an exception, but you keep refusing to say why it should be so, or why the GNG should be thrown to the bin in this case. You have to understand something very simple: if everything that fails the GNG magically becomes an "exception", then WP is dead. It's as simple as that. You shout "exception", but I see no encyclopedic reason behind it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It was not I who first decided to capitalize and embolden his remarks for emphasis. The GNG is not the sole means by which editors may consider notability. The article will benefit from cleanup and condesing to be properly presented, but that's a matter for regular editing by editors interested in doing so... but not through deletion because it has not yet been done. The reason is to better serve our readers, and not just the wishes of an editor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, as I wrote above, I feel that pages Slime Blower and Ghost trap should be restored. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning is based on WP:ILIKEIT and deliberately ignores WP:GNG. You're gonna have to find something else if you want to convince.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Folken, you would do well to not make unfounded declarations about my reasoning, even if my conclusions differ from yours. I am not a Ghostbuster fan, have no personal like nor dislike of the Proton pack, have responded using application of guideline and policy, and have remained quite civil in my responses. I trust that whomsoever closes will ignore any IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT !votes, and base a close upon application of policy and guideline and the respect the consensus created herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • i do not make any unfounded declarations about your reasoning, I'm just summing it up. Trying to count the number of edits and saying "look, so many people like this, thus it must be notable" and telling us not to take the GNG's criteria into account is exactly what you said and what I summed up by "WP:ILIKEIT and deliberately ignoring WP:GNG".Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes unfounded. Use of an essay in an attempt to discredit my analysis. And no, I am not ignoring the GNG. I understand the utility of GNG and have depended upon it to improve hundreds of articles to better serve the project. What I repeatedly have stated unrefuted is my understanding that, valuable as it is, the GNG is NOT the sole means by which editors might determine something worthy of note. The GNG is certainly the easiest means, and is used by many, myself included... but it is not the sole means. This is why every guideline is headed by the statement encouraging common sense it its usage and the understanding that occasional exceptions to those very guidelines are occasionally allowed to exist... and that appears to be where we part paths: My understanding that the GNG is not the only means and your refusal to accept that guidelines allow occasional exceptions to themselves. So why not we keep this discussion about policy and guideline and the consdieration of those occasional allowable exceptions to guideline and avoid offering your personal opinion about how another person may or may not be thinkiing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an important part of the Ghostbusters universe. I could see a merge to List of Ghostbusters equipment or a similar page, but not outright deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A sensible answer and one which can be discussed on the article's talk page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, particularly per the point that "an offered search...finds the topic as having become part of enduring cinematic history". Cavarrone (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The offered "search" doesn't provide any of the sources required to keep the article, and the user who did the "search" jumped to a certain conclusion without his sources actually proving anything.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No jumping here... but calmly explaining that through the offered search, we have a topic which has become part of enduring cinematic history. The GNG is but one of the many means by which we make our considerations toward notability... and one which itself allows that occasional exceptions to itself may be considered if the GNG is not immdiately met, as long as the sources used provide verifiability. It is unhelpful to continue to deny that, as wonderful and accepted as it is for detemining notability, the GNG is not the only means that editors may consider... as that repeated declaration is patently untrue. WP:N allows editorial discretion and does not directly limit the content of an article. And even for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a Hand phaser (Star Trek) article? We don't. We have an article about the weapons in the Star Trek universe instead. So let's merge all the info we have about the Proton pack, the Slime gun, the Ghost trap into one fictional technology in the Ghostbusters universe article and kill the PP article. I don't care about the PP in and of itself but I think the concept that ghosts can be both detected(so let's add the ectosensor, or what was its name again, too...) and trapped by advanced technology was brought to the masses by the GB movie(s). In and of itself, the fictional technology is notable — I think nobody will challenge that — but the PP itself is probably not. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and add the stationary Ghost containment while you're at it.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proton_pack_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138260409"