Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future themes

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. w^{L<speak·check>} 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future themes

Back to the Future themes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - An enormous mess of a trivia article, filled with unsourced original research in declaring as fact that such things as Marty's saying "Mom, is that you?" in each of the films was a deliberate "running gag" or "theme" and that this sort of thing contributed to the popularity of the film series. Otto4711 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is an OR essay authored almost entirely by a single user. Also, the title is a misnomer, as only a small fraction of the items mentioned are themes. Most are motifs, running gags, and maybe even coincidences.--Djrobgordon 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At most, the important themes can be merged to the article on Back to the Future, if they are not already there. --Nevhood 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Original-research essay written primarily by one-user. Some of these have been covered in the main Beck to the Future articles, while others are non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Non-notable, no cited sources and WP:OR. --RazorICEtalkC@ 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yup, mess of WP:OR, trivia, and tricksy little things. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just a large mess of trivia--양복⁴² 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a huge collection of irrelevant trivia and original research. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Information might be interesting to fans of the movies, but this is exactly the kind of thing you'd want to see on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. ◄Zahakiel► 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - any good, verifiable content could go in the Back to the Future article, if not already there. Metamagician3000 07:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article was originally part of the Back to the Future trilogy page, but as this page was very long I removed the copied the themes section into the separate article. I agree that the article needs some work, possibly even a name change, but its clear that there are are large number of themes, or running gags throughout the trilogy.Dannyboy3 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to the first section of the article based on the comments above but it still needs work, some points could probably be removed, and if anyone has a better idea for the title, it would be much appreciated. I don't think this information should be put back into the Back to the Future trilogy page, as it would become too long. Also it is difficult to cite sources, when you are referring to scenes in a movie, the source is the films themselves. Dannyboy3 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Think of sources this way: if a reputable publication hasn't explored a theme of the film, at least briefly, it probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipeida article. If you want an example of a good "Themes" section, check out Blade Runner. It's impeccably sourced and well written, and explores the themes rather than lists them. I suspect a well-sourced article would be significantly shorter than this one, and could probably be merged back into the main article.--Djrobgordon 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete - You are correct in that it's a lot of crap to be in the Back to the Future trilogy article, but the point is it's crap period. Sort out the more notable bits and make it fit in the original article or delete it all together. Wikpedia isn't the place for this, start a back to the future fan site if you want to put this much info out on it. - Arch NME 13:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we not refer to good-faith edits as crap?--Djrobgordon 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See my user page and please don't mention it again. - Arch NME 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per several users above. Anthony Hit me up... 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per Dannyboy3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dannyboy3. THE KING 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could anyone who's voted to keep per Dannyboy3 point out what they find so compelling about his argument. I'm not trying to disparage him, as I believe he's a well-intentioned editor trying to write a good article, but all he's argued is that the article is too long to be merged into Back to the Future trilogy. He hasn't attempted to counter any of the concerns about sourcing, verifiability, or notability. Again, I'm questioning the reasoning of those voting "keep per Dannyboy3," not Dannyboy3 himself.--Djrobgordon 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately, not good on it's own. Please userfy to me? I might be able to do something with integrating the good stuff back into the BttF film articles. - Denny 19:43, 5 March 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.