Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalocalypse trivia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metalocalypse trivia

Metalocalypse trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of trivia copied from old version of List of Metalocalypse episodes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor does such fancruft deserve its own page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because some person posted a message on your talk page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete agreed very cruff like.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BJTalk 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is not indiscriminate information it is relevant, it explains many things that casual watchers might not understand. Also Someguy is stalking me. Bobthehun2 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Attempted vote-stacking by user. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A page especially for trivia? Ugh. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --tjstrf talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is not indiscriminate information it is all perfectly relevant to the show. Aside from that, countless other wikipedia pages have trivia sections that are accepted. This trivia section does not match any of the examples given on the indiscriminate collection of information section of the WP:NOT page. It is not an FAQ, it is not a travel guide, it is not a memorial, it is not an instruction manual, it is not an internet guide, it is not a textbook or annotated text, and it is not a plot summary. Unless Someguy0830 can get an 8th section added to that rule stating that it is not a source of relevant trivia, it's a moot point to even reference. The definition of indiscriminate is "failing to make or recognize distinctions" or "not marked by fine distinctions," anybody reading this trivia can plainly see that the vast majority of this trivia either deals with references to real life heavy metal bands or recurring issues in the show. It is blatantly incisive. The only reason I would opt for deletion of this page is if it were integrated back into the main metalocalypse article. Countless other tv shows have trivia sections in their articles, such as, CSI: Miami, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, NYPD Blue, the list goes on and on. Other tv shows such as The Venture Brothers and Kappa Mikey have "references" or "themes" sections. How about we just change the heading of this trivia section to references and themes"?Karpsmom 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: this !vote was solicited.
      • It's a lie that my vote was solicited, simply because Bobthehun2 put that message in my talkpage, does not mean it had any bearing on my voting. I found that note after I voted, I would have given this vote regardless.Karpsmöm 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified indiscriminate fancruft. An article made up of unpublished analyses. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, add WP:NOT (which appears to have been missed when linking "indiscriminate") in the above by IslaySolomon and it sums up my thoughts quite nicely. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Struck, see below. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's no reason why Metalocalypse can't have trivia when there are many, many pre-existing and well known television series that have trivia of their own.MalikCarr 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: this !vote was solicited.
    • — MalikCarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • WP:INN. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What the hell is the above supposed to mean? I've argued in favor of keeping trivia sections since the article was created; not being able to upload images anonymously forced me to create an account, hence its relatively recent creation date and lack of edited articles. This just adds to the overtly heavy-handed tactics used in this particular AfD. MalikCarr 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A little investigation shows this AFD is not made in good faith, and the page itself is useful. Jtrainor 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Your first reason for keeping is extremely flawed, and the latter is nearly as much. Whether this AfD was made in good faith or not, we are here to evaluate the article, not the nominator. Whether the page is useful or not does not dictate its' inclusion - see WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V, three core foundation policies that cannot be overriden for purely "useful" reasons. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and information that is notable and verifable (or otherwise critical to the main article) can easily be merged into the article text. --Sigma 7 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - I like the show, but this is too indiscriminate a collection of information for my tastes (and for WP:Not). --TheOtherBob 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge with Metalocalypse or its related episodes article. This is a large trivia section, yes, but there are a lot of references in the show that many people would otherwise not understand. Personal note: I wrote about the show for my college paper, and referred readers to Wikipedia if they didn't understand the references in the show. --DodgerOfZion 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    There's a lot of OR, unverified material, and although WP:TRIVIA semi-discourages it, I would be happy with a slight cut-down, some good, detailed sourcing (see WP:RS), and then a merge into either one of those you suggested. Probably the episodes would be easier - having a giant trivia section on the main article page would be overkill, just as the current article devoted solely to trivia is. However, if it doesn't show any sign of being sourced, I will let my original delete stand. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    How would I go about doing this? The only way I could think of possibly sourcing connections between the points made on the page and what they refer to would be through picture files. Would an outside link do? --DodgerOfZion 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    I guess...this is the main problem with Trivia sections; they're all mainly OR. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I'm negotiating with some fellow Dethheads to get some of this trivia verified and hosted off-Wiki. Quite frankly, without this page (or its predecessor), half the people I know who watch this show wouldn't know WTF anything referred to. --DodgerOfZion 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    I will be happy with whatever trivia can be reliably sourced to some degree. That said, I'm against any section specificaly dedicated to such trivia, because such things are what encouraged this in the first place. Merging it into the text would be fine so long as it's not too much. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Give me a couple hours with Google and possibly CaptureWizPro, and I can probably source anything and everything in the article. That said, I'm trying to talk someone into verifying things for me so that it doesn't get banished to Wiki-Hell. --DodgerOfZion 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'll tell you right now that there's only one place you're going to be reliably sourcing any of this, and that's from creator interviews. You want Dethklok's and its creators' MySpace pages for such things. Either that or AS.com. You won't be combing such things from Google. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    I was thinking more along the lines of photographic evidence using a GIS, and of course I'll look to those places first, but on the other hand, they're not going to be explicit about what refers to what. Did I break your tables yet? :P --DodgerOfZion 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Tables? Whatever. Photographic comparisons would require you to upload image after image combined to demonstrate that, which would go well beyond any rationale of fair-use. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Any and all photographs relating to any points on this page would be on outside sources. I wouldn't use Wiki's image servers to prove a point. For a lot of the facts, I only need to prove that these bands/songs/albums/whatever reference actually exist, it seems. --DodgerOfZion 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    No, what you need to prove is that any comparison made is an intentional one on the part of the creators, not simply a noticed similarity by a random fan, which is in essence what every one of these trivia blurbs is. Of course the bands exist. People aren't stupid. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    Settle down, Beavis. Anyways, I've already gotten offers from people to help me verify these. I'll be scouring and watching for a while after finals. I guarantee if this page is kept, there'll be at least three different outside pages linked from it. --DodgerOfZion 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)--DodgerOfZion 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This information can be found on other sites, so if anything simply provide a link to those sites. The information cannot be sourced, save for fan's "knowledge" of the intricacies of the show, which falls more into the personal research realm, which is not allowed, rather than a verifiable/reliable source, which is. I love the trivia, and find it interesting, but due to it having no sources to back up its claims, it needs to be deleted. -- ModernTenshi04 16:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it would be best to have an off-site link to a repository of the more OR-ish claims, but some idiot or idiots keep deleting any links I put into the Metalocalypse episodes pages. With that kind of attitude going around, what recourse is there but to have a trivia page itself?MalikCarr 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Of course, a lot of the information on Wikipedia can be found on other sites. ModernTenshi's argument just seems kind of weak. It's not just 'intricacies of the show,' but a lot of it seems to be based on a knowledge of trivia concerning heavy metal bands and trademarks.--MythicFox 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any sourceable claims into the episodes list article, delete the rest. Quack 688 07:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia such as this simply doesn't belong here. --71.194.243.237 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Episodes list. While some of the Trivia would be nice wtih something resembling official source material, a lot of it is along the lines of "this store or this fictional location happens to have the same name as a well-known musician." I mean, how do you research something like that any further? Most of the individual material is fine as-is. It's just awkward to have a seperate Trivia page.--MythicFox 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a collection of interesting information that any person might like to know. I never caught all of the Cannibal Corpse references until this article. We should keep it.--168.103.48.191 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Quack 688, doesn't need own article. Makgraf 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but split into separate articles for each episode. // Gargaj 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A relatively small show like Metalocalypse doesn't need its own trivia article. Coronation Street, maybe, with it's 40-odd years of tenure. But not Metalocalypse. Delete the list, or gut it down and merge it back in to the main article. ♠PMC♠ 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:TRIV, unless someone would like to attempt a merge now. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the entire article is Original Research with no verifiable reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:47, 20 December 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.