Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator technology

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, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Predator technology

Predator technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article lacks references to secondary sources. Lacks any information about real-world notability, or even development, special effects, critical reaction, etc. At its best points, this article is simply plot summary; at its worst, it contains synthesis and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to a more suitable location (wherever that may be). The article is unverifiable/unnotable fancruft, but at least it's very well-written fancruft.... --jonny-mt 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Per EEMIV and Jonny-mt. Also, the article is overloaded with images, which I've tried several times to delete, but other users keep wanting to add them, but I didn't want to bother with a dispute. — Enter Movie (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- I'm working hard on this. Justs needs more references and cleansing of fan-crap.Dark hyena (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • While your recent edits are improvements, the article is still in-universe plot summary. Rather than looking for citations for the medpack's contents, what the article really needs is information on these props' design, development, marketing/merchandising, etc. Please see WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but surely now the need to delete the article altogether is gone. All non encyclopedic and unsourced opinons have been removed. The only template required in my view now is the "re-write" one.Dark hyena (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • While a remarkable improvement with the removal of speculation and original research, the article still does not meet the WP:WAF call for information on these fictional items' real-world development, critical response, merchandising, etc. The words "director," "producer," "response," "develop," "product," and "merchandise" do not appear in the article. The addition of citations is laudable, but substantiate only plot summary, which is insufficient for an article about a fictional topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Is there anyone here with "a making of" DVD of any of the films? Would adding the design history of the technology in Stan Winston studios make any difference?Dark hyena (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • EEMIV, then the article is no longer a legitimate candidate for deletion according to the rules you are bringing up. It's now a matter of cleanup. You really should withdraw your nomination and allow editors to clean up the article. The article satisfies notability, and is well referenced. Malamockq (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of. The article is comprised of plot summary with an in universe persective, which means it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is perfect example of fancruft that is better suited to the Annex.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well organized and referenced article concerning a memorable and notable aspect of a major fictional franchise. Great job on the improvements! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Dark Hyena. If he is working on it, let him work on it RogueNinja_talk 08:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this page doesn't make much sense. This was created because the Predator (alien) article was becoming too big. The article is well referenced, and is all legitimate information from the various movies, comics, and videogames. This article needs clean-up, not deletion. Let the editors work on it. Malamockq (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep in order to provide a coherent and unified presentation of the material, which transcends the level of the individual parts. But the amount of detail is sometimes excessive, and the writing diffuse. The article needs editing. A great many video articles need extensive editing, having been written with more enthusiasm than skill. such problems can of course be solved by removing them all, but this would also apply to the content of much of WP. Most of it probably needs extensive upgrading and rewriting--as often expansion as condensation, and the quickest way to do it would be to throw out all substandard content regardless of the importance of the subject. Citizendium did just that in its first few months: it originally forked the 99% of WP for which it did not have articles, and then removed all of it that had not be at least partially rewritten. It's now 95% red links, but they think it an improvement for their purposes. They won't ever have much video or game content, either. Our purposes here are a little more comprehensive.

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.