Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

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 of the debate was delete. The arguments for deleting the article — one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone — are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was "Personal essay and interpration of film. This article violates core policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by definition." To that I would add that the large number of "fair use" images, as well as the fact that every single scene of the film is described in detail, infringes on the copyright of the film. The content of this article has been moved out of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) because the main article is too long. For this reason (and because the content itself is inappropriate per the above arguments), merging the content back into the main article is not a viable option. Delete Angr (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Contested PROD?" What is contested PROD? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:PROD -- 9cds^(talk) 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. But I think a better acronym could be used. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind}

Originally, I was going to say delete, but I will ammend this to a conditional keep, if Mr. Palpatine agrees to work on this page with me to refine it, and do further research with citations. It is a film that needs a longer explination than may be given on the front page, but should not be as long as it is (or have so many pictures as it does) now. There are the workings of a good article behind this-- one which may utilize quotes between Kubrick and Clarke for an NPOV and citations. My guess is that if our effort is put towards it, it can be a functioning wikipedia entry by the end of the week. The Photoplayer 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work but I also think we should keep -- Bungopolis 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with original article and drastically cut down detail in this area and others described if length is an issue. SM247 11:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Borderline unencyclopedic. On the other hand well done, verifiable, descriptive rather than an opinionated review, and an influential film. For a lot of other IMDB-top-100 films this level of detail would be insane but for this one it works. Wikipedia is not paper so going into detail is possible. The main article can (and does) have a greatly abbreviated synopsis. Weregerbil 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the proposal WP:WAF describes this situation well, an extended film synopsis (without secondary sources) is too much like WP:OR, the impact of the film on the "real world" is more encyclopedic, but that is already covered in Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey. Regards, MartinRe 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify: If a film synopsis is done by a wikipedia editor, then it is WP:OR, if a synopsis is done by a secondary source, then wikipedia can discuss the synopsis as a tertiary source, but analysing multiple secondary sources (e.g. synopses) to create a new one, is also original research. Also, this article does not reference any sources, so it's hard to tell which one it is, but neither are appropiate. Regards, MartinRe 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, editors combine multiple secondary sources all the time; it is only "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data" by the editor that is forbidden by WP:NOR. To my way of thinking, collecting information from multiple synopses is not analysis in the sense that WP:NOR means it; it is just "collecting and organizing".Gerry Ashton 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Combining multiple secondary sources to create tertiary sources is fine. Combining multiple secondary sources to create another secondary source is a different matter. Regards, MartinRe 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Jason Palpatine by Scm83x:

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summerised it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analysied several synopses and summerised them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above copied from my talk page by me:

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub article itself] inappropriate. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Phrases from 2001: A Space Odyssey are frequently used in popular culture. The phrase "I'm sorry Dave" gets 139,000 hits on Google. A collection of memorable phrases from this film can be found at [1]. I would favor an article that gives sufficient context to the most important quotes from this movie so a person who never saw the movie could search on the quote and understand the context of the quote. I don't know how well the article under discussion serves that purpose. Gerry Ashton 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm curious. I am familiar with 2001: A Space Odyssey (film and book), but what is 2001: A Space Oddesy? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Don't insult other's spelling errors. No one is perfect. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I was being civil. I was serious. I did not believe it to be an error. There have been other works that have parodied 2001: A Space Odyssey, like 2001: A Space Travesty. I thought it was something I have not encountered. One of the earliest such film's was 2001: A Space Oddity (re: Jerome Agel. The Making of Kubrick's 2001) -- note the similarity with the misspelled title? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Weregerbil. If this spurns a series of similar articles, then I'd vote delete. Any OR should be removed, but a pure NPOV synopsis is not OR. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, and cut back if needed. -- cds^(talk) 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with original movie article. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: this article was originally the synopsis section of the main article. It was created when the article was flagged for size and recommended for split. It was earlier put back into the article when it was marked for AfD. It was immediately cut out by an admin who considers it inappropriate there on account of the drive for deletion of the article. Sorry. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the scene by scene description infringes on the copyright holders ability to effectively distribute their film. This synopsis was forked because it was going to be removed from the main article and replaced with a 1-2 paragraph summary and User:Robeykr did not like that. Fair use issues abound and the article overall is not very well written. Please delete for the good of the Wiki. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record -- That is untrue and you know it. I forked the article because the main was flagged as too big and a split was recommended. Report to Dolores Umbridge for writers cramps please. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article cannot be merged because there is no encyclopedic content here. It is not a "sypnosis", and aside from the title, it makes no pretentions to be. It very clearly describes itself as an "interpration" of the film. It is not a summary of other's interprations, which already exists at a seperate article, nor an actual sypnosis, which exists within the main article. It is strictly a personal essay, which is further demonstrated by the fact that writer has allowed virtually no changes to the article that he originally created. This is clearly, to me, an innapropriate article that should be deleted.--Sean Black 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record 2 -- Untrue. What I opposed was/is the article being over-edited. i.e.: butchered. Changes have been made to it, such as the whittling down of the number of images in the article. Edits have been don by other admins, but an intolerant few just will not be satisfied until AfD is complete. BTW -- what is your vote on the matter? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote.--Sean Black 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, with original. -- XxLyLJeNNixX 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User's only other two edits are blanking vandalism. There are accusations of sockpuppetry for this account at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Brawlers Association. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and edit. It needs more than a few paragraphs, but interpreting the movie is a bit excessive. Calwatch 07:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)}

1. Why?
2. What is "nom"? --Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- I should say something. I was/am the originator of this article. I branched it off from the main article when it was cited as being too big. Since then other sections have also been branched off. Much of his article (section) was written and in existence before I came along and others have said so. Since my original edits and branching, some others have looked at it, ridiculed it, argued with me about it -- one person even LIED in matter. Accusations have been made that this article violates core policy Wikipedia:No original research. In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources. The claim that this article containes any original research is an outright lie! Ultimately, this came to the listing of this article for AfC -- an article about one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. Such an action, if done, would be a waste. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- 201.130.213.220 (SIGNED ANONYMOSLY)
  • nOTE: I placed the signature for this person's entry because they did not do it themself. I am not 201.130.213.220 -- check the history. I would not be so low as to attempt to stuff the box. -- Jason Palpatine 04:53, 9 June 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.