Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reset button technique

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reset button technique

Seems like a fan-made neologism. No sources cited. Googling returns less than 30 unique results [1]. Most Ghits are mirrors or the occasional unrelated message board post. Delete as unverifiable and as original research. Wickethewok 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete [2] seems to mention it but its reliability is in question. The phenomenon is never called "reset button technique", just "reset button", but that article was already taken, so the creator must have used this as the alternate title. ColourBurst 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with the extra sources. ColourBurst 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• The original version of the article called it the "reset button" effect, as do this review of the Magnificent Seven television series, this person writing about Battlestar Galactica, and this person writing about Stargate SG-1. Uncle G 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. Even if there is a term that is almost the same, there are huge swathes of examples in this article that have no references, plus "see also" links to other terms that mean the same thing. At best this should get a merged with the Reboot (continuity) article as Reboot even mentions the reset button in its unreferenced examples. Arghh, somebody press the reset button! Yomangani^talk 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I thought about that too, but my understanding is that the two terms are different. Reboot is used to purge all continuity away (like Heroes Reborn in Marvel Comics). Reset Button only wipes away the continuity of a single episode or segment, like some science-fiction shows. ColourBurst 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The term itself may turn out to be a neologism but the concept is clearly real enough, with a dozen or so examples already cited by the article. It looks to me like all it needs are some references (ie, web links could be found for the aforementioned examples of the concept), and possibly a better title, and it'd be fine. --Saucepan 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The phenomenon is real, and I have no doubt there are proper sources out there to document it. The writers/maintainers of this article ought to be given a chance to find them. Rohirok 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite and move. We should have an article about the "reset button" type of plots, but it shouldn't contain sentences like "Effective use of this device depends on the audience being unaware of the continuity status, or successful suspension of disbelief that continuity is or will be interrupted, and the eventual communication of the status of continuity to the audience." Chunks of this article are blatant essay/OR. I say keep for the topic, but don't keep the article as is. Also, it should probably be titled Reset button (plot) because it's not really a technique so much as a plot device. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to more appropriate name, and retain. This is a pretty widely used term, not only by fans but by critics. Sources should be sought to improve the quality, but that could be said for 90% of articles. I oppose merging with reboot (continuity) which is an entirely different concept. Espresso Addict 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think literary criticism can do better than 'reset button technique'. See no evidence of notability.-Kmaguir1 09:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• What notability standard are you applying? Also, notability is just a guideline for ensuring verifiability. This is definitely verifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More certifiable than verifiable, the article has only 30 google hits, is a dumbed down pseudo-literary critical term. And if notability and verifiability were not distinct to some degree, then the speck of dust on my F7 key could be placed on wikipedia as long as I had a couple of friends over at the house who had seen it.-Kmaguir1 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Widely used term when discussing television series, comic books, and science fiction in particular. 23skidoo 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• A certain Keep. This is a common enough term; used on 'TV Tropes' as standard, uncontested term, referred to in bestselling 'Planet Simpson', and while there are few hits for the string 'reset button technique', a significant proportion of the hits for 'reset button' refer to this phenomenon - it is simply that the word 'technique' is not normally applied. As an example, there are 43,600 google hits for ""reset button" trek", virtually all of which refer to the technique in the context of star trek, a regular offender. As for 'dumbed-down', such a label speaks of an artificial barrier between high culture and pop culture, which is quite against the principles of Wikipedia. I would counsel moving to reset button (narratology) or reset button (plot device). Matthew Platts 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Reset button" is very common to describe cheats made by shows to maintain episodic structure. I have heard it many times before seeing it on Wikipedia. The lack of Google results is probably from searching the whole term "reset button technique". Eleland 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a real phenomenon that is widely used Yuckfoo 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! Me likee! 203.153.230.101 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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.