Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amphibiosan

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 per WP:OR. I see no definitive refutation of the claim of original research in the article. I don't see what material there would be to merge, as the entire section on biology would have to go, the name of the species has to go and all that is left at this point is the name of the planet and the characters from the planet. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amphibiosan

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

Nomination for deletion This article is primarily an original research synthesis (which is anyway based on primary source material of a comedic nature which is unreliable for the serious-mindedness of this analysis) - fails WP:OR. An earlier version of the article briefly made it onto the main page DYK section before being removed for lacking reliable sources.

Please see the earlier version here with my comment about this on the main page error report page here.

Since then the article has been updated - the original version's own assertion that as Futurama is a comedy, it is an unreliable primary source and may not be regarded as an effort at creating stable or canonical definitions has been removed, though the long list of serious-minded research conclusions about the biology of this fictional comedy species derived from the primary source remains. Further references have been added but these amount to further original research efforts to justify the long list of serious-minded guesses - the new references are mainly links to actual biology texts that do not mention this species at all. They are simply used to support a fan's speculation. Then there's a link to a one-line speculation in a review on Startrek.com that the "Grand Midwife "seems like a cross between Yoda and T'Pau""(?), a link to an almost-no-content random fansite page[1], and also, it is strangely implied that as one of the Futurama writers may have a PhD in Inorganic Chemistry, this supports the original research?

Furthermore, the problem of the name of the article persists from the original version - the article itself indicates that it is not based on reliable sources:"Although the name "Amphibios 9" is shown clearly in "Kif Gets Knocked Up A Notch", "Amphibiosans" are never referred to as such in the series. The name has, however, been picked up by fans and is used in such capacities as fan fiction and role-playing game statistics. Note that in Futurama, the inhabitants of Earth are called "Earthians"."

Bwithh 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant delete Futurama fan here, but there are too many articles on minimal parts from the show. Should be on a futurama wiki. Also, as said above a lot of it is original research. --WillMak050389 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, give me a chance. I hadn't even listed this on the afd page or written a line yet when you !voted. The afd nomination template screws up 70-80% of the time I use it if I don't lay it down as a stub first before I start writing a proper nomination. I won't list the afd nom on the main afd page until its ready. Bwithh 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have upset you, I thought that was your nomination. Vote edited. --WillMak050389 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if I overreacted. It's been a long day. Bwithh 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Amphibios 9. I agree that the naming problem is huge with this article and it definitely needs some pruning but I think some of it could be merged with the article on the planet and leave the whole as a reasonably OK article. Stardust8212 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect: I'm also a Futurama fan, but I don't think that Amphibios 9 and Amphibiosans are seperately notable enough to both deserve pages. -- Scorpion 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Half the references are to a single Futurama episode or a review of that episode, with others being to zoological information about amphibians and reptiles. Attempting to synthesise such information seems like a clear example of original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questons & Comments: There is a "Category:Futurama races". Are these all being proposed for deletion? Is the main problem with this article's name, and if so, would renaming it "Kif's race?" or "Amphibios 9 inhabitants" solve this problem? Why would past versions of this article be relevant here? Targeting articles ten times worse than this would be a full-time job. Hit your "random page" button a few times and look at the crap that pops up. It looks like alot of time has been spent on this article. How about giving the author a break and addressing more blatant problems? Shaundakulbara 09:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply The main issue here is original research - the name of the article is but one element of the problem with the article content. WP:OR is a core content policy. The previous version of the article is relevant for the related comments which still apply to this version. I created Wikipedia:Random page patrol and Category:Wikipedian_random_page_patrollers - I encourage all to join. Fans do often put a lot of work into their fan culture artefacts and writings - this doesn't make these encyclopedically notable. I already gave the creator a break by not opting to afd immediately after the article was pulled from the main page, but waiting for a few days instead. There are a ton of Wikipedia articles with "blatant problems" - this one appeared on the main page, so it was rather more "blatant" than average and caught my attention. Bwithh 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The author has apparently left Wikipedia in disgust over matters having nothing to do with this article. He's had 45 DYK's in 2 months and wrote all of these articles. They’re not fancruft either. Because of that track record that was hoping he will return. And now, out of all the crap on Wikipedia that sits there unchallenged, this admittedly stupid but at least well-written article gets dragged to AfD. There are guidelines regarding when to ignore all other guidelines when it serves the greater good. Going tough on this article is not serving a greater good. It’s just mean. -Shaundakulbara 10:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was it crufty, I said it was original research. He may have written a lot of DYK articles (kudos to him - though its hardly the same as writing featured articles or even as hard as writing ones classifiable as good articles), but this one's below par. WP:IAR (which is a poorly thought out policy anyway, in my opinion) is designed to serve the encyclopedia's mission, not to protect people's feelings. I've held off nominating this article for several days now. What am I supposed to do? Never nominate it in case it means the author will never come back to Wikipedia? I wasn't even aware this was written by the same user involved in the other dispute or that he'd "left in disgust" when I nominated it anyway. Bwithh 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bwithh, I respectfully suggest that it would benefit Wikipedia if editors would first make sure their own articles are up-to-par in regards to references and such before assuming the role of pundit. Shaundakulbara 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your recent "surveillance run" through my list of articles on my user page, which was apparently a response to my expressing my opinion in an unrelated discussion[2]. I'm baffled why I was singled out for this monitoring/discrediting effort, as my role in that discussion was quite limited before you started your little exercise. I was waiting to see if it would cross over into full-blown wiki-stalking or not. If you bothered to look at the histories of the few articles you tagged as having reference problems (actually you overlooked the external links provided in the articles for a couple of them - and Princess Pearl is out of my hands. I keep that up to mark the first time that I rescued a badly written stub from speedy delete - I rewrote it as a coherent stub with a notability claim and pretty much left it to the fans after that (I've never seen the show)), you will see that those articles come from much earlier in my wikiexperience when I was experimenting with creating stubs and basic articles and was content to just to drop in a few external links). I keep them on my user page for nostalgic purposes. The kind of article content I create now are more like JMWAVE and Latin American School of Medicine and Julius Soubise which reflect my experience gained since those early days. For the record, I've never attempted original research synthesis - even in my novice days. It's useful to have someone to remind one that one's early attempts at articles could do with some brushing up (I'd rather forgotten about them) - but may I respectfully remind you to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and to avoid the comprehensive "checking out" of editors you disagree with in policy discussions - it can give a bad impression. If you feel that editors without a perfect editing history should be barred from nominating articles for afd or participating in article discussions, I encourage you to voice your ideas in the appropriate policy channels. Apologies to the rest of the afd participants for this disruption of the discussion. Bwithh 11:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• One posts links on one's user page with the assumption that other editors might take a look at what's there. A single instance me of browsing a few articles and tagging those lacking references does not equal WP:Stalking and that is a very serious matter to be accused of. I respectfully ask you to refrain from making such an accusation spuriously as that constitutes a personal attack. If you feel you are being stalked, please contact Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and an administrator will intervene. Thank you. Shaundakulbara 11:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you'd read what I written properly, I said I was waiting to see if the unusual level of attention you seem to be giving to my articles - apparently in response to an opinion you disagree with in the context of an unrelated WP:DRV discussion which you seem to be taking rather personally (a discussion which I was not even a main participant in!) - was going to cross over into wikistalking. This is neither spurious nor a personal attack, but a hope that you wouldn't continue to go in that direction. I'm glad that you agree that this would be a bad idea. Bwithh 11:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• No Opinion - I am the author of this article and I am more than happy to accept whatever consensus is arrived at in this discussion. While I wrote articles for Wikipedia I designed them to withstand scrutiny. If I erred in creating this article in the first place then it should be deleted. I only have a problem with admins and other editors who bypass the process when it suits them. I play by the rules and all I asked for was for others to do the same. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HouseOfScandal (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete At first glance the article has references, but on examination they turn out to be a Futurama comic book, which would be ok if it contains the statement that it is supposed to reference. In addition there are the editors' original research from viewing the TV show, and blogs and fan fiction, which are not reliable sources. The reliable sources, biology books, are not about the subject of the article. The series is notable, and has multiple independent reliable sources to show that. The individual episodes probably do not, and the individual characters such as this probably do not. The mass of related articles appear to be a case of loyal fans of a fictional work showing their appreciation of the work by spewing articles about every minute aspect of it all over Wikipedia, however non-notable they are by the applicable standards. I like Sherlock Holmes stories, but I do not find it necessary to write an article about every person he encountered, every place he went, and everything he touched in the stories. Edison 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article actually uses only written sources, mostly scripts. The blog and fan fiction mention is a tiny element of this article and could be removed in a snap if we rename it. Let's please try not to judge this article differently because it is based on scripts of a comedy show. I'm not convinced discussing certain elements of a script is original research. Any article involves selecting info to present versus info that isn't relevant. There are no theories here nor personal observations other than saying what species traits the green guy showed in certain episodes. Pointing out stuff like Amphibosians have nipples like mammals but are invertebrates because they have no bones doesn't cross the line into original research. And please remember that there is lots of esoteric minutae on Wikipedia...while it can go too far Wikipedia really is the place for it. Cephalopod size is its own article. The Cheetah Girls tours is its own article, as is Young Marx. I'm not convinced this is original research nor that it's too specialized since other Futurama races have articles as well. No one answered me when I asked if those should be proposed for deletion too. How about this article on the Mor-Taxans? Thanks all. Shaundakulbara 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crufty OR, and inadequate evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As for the other Futurama races: bring them on ! WMMartin 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic Fancruft. Eusebeus 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with/to Amphibios 9. It would be irrational and illogical to simply delete the information contained in this article. I haven't looked at all the race/planet Futurama articles on wikipedia, but I'd imagine if there's that big of an objection, they could all be merged into one article, maybe? Ok, now I have looked at all planet/alien Futurama articles and they could be merged into one article of all planets and their inhabitants of Futurama. The only significant one of the bunch is decapodian. Chickenmonkey 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see policy WP:OR for why it wouldn't be irrational or illogical for almost all the information in the article. Bwithh 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. My thought that it would be irrational and illogical to simply delete the information of this article was not because of compliance to WP:OR (although I'm not so sure it truly is in violation of that policy). Why I believe it to be irrational and illogical is because of all the other fictional material that is articled on Wikipedia. Nearly everything in this article can be verified by looking at the script of one episode and a few pictures. That's why I think it could just as easily be condensed and merged with one or more of the other Futurama articles. Chickenmonkey 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Just because similar fictional material exists on Wikipedia is not a solid argument for keep per WP:POKEMON. And if that material has similar problems, they are also subject to action under WP:OR. Most of the article (including the title) cannot be sourced to primary source material (which itself has been described as unreliable by the article in the version which appeared on DYK) without original research leaps of faith Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. It is my understanding, through reading WP:MOSWAF and similar guideline articles, that citing an episode is acceptable as a primary source. The episode of "Kif Gets Knocked Up A Notch" contains much of the information in this article. There are faults, which include analysis that seemingly came from the editor(s) of this article (which should/could be reworded), and as I said, it could be merged with Amphibios 9 (or more Futurama articles about races/planets) which would take care of the title issue. If the information not needed in this article and the information that shouldn't be in this article were removed and it were rewritten, I believe it could be merged easily. Chickenmonkey 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, redirect and delete pics. Indeed, a article for the planet and another one the species isn`t usefull. Also, there are too many images, I would leave only one with the planet, the larval stage, Kif Kroker of course and upload one with the president of DOOP.--ometzit<col> 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: books, news, scholar Addhoc 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Amphibios 9, per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:21, 11 February 2007 (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.