Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giger's Alien

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 Redirect to Xenomorph (Alien). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 12:04Z

[edit] Giger's Alien

Giger's Alien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A pointless list of names for the Alien featured in the Alien films. Fan fluff and OR. Driller thriller 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Xenomorph (Alien). The Alien-related stuff belongs there anyway, the rest of it is background information and can be mentioned in footnotes. The more interesting information, like the Latin translations of the binominal names, has already been merged. Xihr 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be no merger. Xenomorph (Alien) is full of inconsistencies in the canonical description of the creature. Giger's Alien directly addresses the inconsistencies of the canon of the aliens creature, but only to the point of how the creatures are named as to avoid redundancy. The information in the xenomorph article could necessarily change due to future additions to the fictional universe. On the other hand, the accurate information on the GA page can only be added to. So while the canon of xenomorph is temporally based on new input, the GA page is a history of different incarnations of the creature (which uses the names the creature is called as landmarks). Combining the two articles would complicate things by either removing information or requiring both a canon and a historical analysis of the changes in the steps of the canon. There are other articles on wikipedia that have similar dual (or more) pages on different ideas behind a subject. These two articles may be about the "same" subject (the creature), but they are not addressing the same ideas. Maybe GA needs work, but xenomorph is not a perfect article either. That is the point, so the GA article is not pointless. I disagree that it is fan fluff. Batman Dead End, for example, is fan fluff. It is not canon (other than how it appears on imdb.com), nor does it matter to any aspect of the canon. In addition, there are many places on wikipedia where information is not absolutely exclusive to one (and only one) article. The information on these two pages, and the separation of the two subjects, better allows for the understanding of the creature, and the ways the creature has been interpreted by so many writers, artists, producers, etc. --Trakon 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not going to deal with everything you've written, because you've written a great deal, but, briefly, if Xenomorph (Alien) is full of inconsistencies, then you should address them by correcting errors and drawing attention to them on that page, not by creating a rival article with the express intention of creating a content fork. I'm not sure I understand the arguments you have made, but I would simply point out that by combining the two pages the content that you acknowledge would be removed would, if worthy of inclusion, surely be redundant? And with reference to Batman Dead End: it is precisely not fluff, it is a fan-made film, however it is one that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, the very fact I know what it is demonstrates this; what is fluff and OR is attempting to create an article where realistically none need exist. This page doesn't aid understanding, it hinders it. Driller thriller 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"This page doesn't aid understanding, it hinders it." If that statement were true, then things in the GA article that have been written that were in fact true have aided the degeneration of the understanding of a subject. The xenomorph and GA articles are not dealing with the same issues and they do not function in the same way. The xenomorph article will change in content, while the GA article will expand its content; the xenomorph article can expand its content, but the verified content of the GA article cannot be changed. Maybe you think GA should be called "A list of names of the creature from the Aliens movies" (or hopefully something shorter in length). Other articles on wikipedia use supplemental articles to define different levels of abstraction. Maybe you think there is not enough information for the GA article to carry its own weight? In this case redundancy solves the need for the GA article. But if you are trying to tell me that redundancy of information is purely the reason to merge different levels of abstraction on a subject, I would have to disagree. Or at least I would have to know where to arbitrarily draw the line at a level of abstraction or an amount of information in order to separate one article into two or more articles.

Concerning, once again, the Batman Dead End short, it is my opinion that almost everything in general is fluff. It is my opinion that especially fan-fiction is fluff. I realize that my views on this may be in a minority, but I am not throwing out information. I will not purposefully spread misinformation or lead someone away from accuracy, but I do not really care about Wikipedia's notability requirements (or any other requirements, except for when we share opinions), the Xenomorph (aliens) article, or the Giger's Alien article. But I do care for accuracy of information and my own self-interests. In this case, I am either right and knowledgeable by default, or I am subject to being lead to the truth by people like yourself. To me, that is why wikipedia is interesting, because it is a communal hub of information, thoughts, and ideas (the community somehow arguably being self-interested, but nonetheless well intentioned for the whole). The content of an article X is only a place to start.

If still none of this has further made clear myself and my arguments, and if you still do not agree with the ones you do understand, then I think we are not communicating, unfortunately, and I am finished (exhausted, time to move on, I type too much, etc). If you do understand and agree, then I think we are finished. If you disagree with something I have said that you now understand, I might continue this discussion. --Trakon 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Driller thriller. OR and fancruft. Merge anything cited (which is nothing). - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there's no need for a separate article. Mgiganteus1 18:27, 12 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.