Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colt (Supernatural) (3rd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Colt (Supernatural)[edit]

A fictional weapon. All real world information is located in Supernatural (TV series). The rest is original research and part of thew plot. It seems to have no notability outside the show. The previous Afds, a year ago ended with no consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be mostly original research of in-universe facts not supported by any sort of reliable source. Redir to parent article if necessary. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are definitely story-internal facts that should, IMO, by transwikied to the wiki for the show. As for original research, that is an orthogonal issue and should IMO be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some details, such as Kripke's thoughts on an alternate history spinoff that features the Colt, can be cited. Some, such as what kind of entities the gun is actually deadly to, are speculative and should be removed. Others, such as what kind of real historical Colt the one in this article is based on and where the inscription comes from, may just need sourcing (a matter of time and effort). Banazir (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly unneeded information and extensive summary of the plots involving the gun. Can easily be shortened into the subsection on the main page. Ophois (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Unneeded" is a matter of personal opinion, whereas some of the details are clearly plot summary and fail notability criteria. I would argue that most of that material should be moved to the Supernatural wiki or just removed from this article itself, but that it should exist despite the WP:PLOT issue, because it is also an alternative history tie-in (and thus related to story-external topics such as series creator Eric Kripke's mention of a possible alternative history spin-off in an interview). As for how easily it can be shortened "into" the page for the show, I agree that it is easy to cut or subsume plot summary info, but I would like to propose that, as a compromise, we first fork all of the "artifacts" on the main page into one artifact page, and then merge this page for the Colt into it. Banazir (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in the first and second AfD discussions, has gradually been improved to meet standards for WP:Reliable sources, WP:Fiction, and WP:CYF. The object has some historical fiction signifcance and, as documented in the cited references, is notable (or at least significant) in establishing a mythology for the series. Certainly it has stayed integral as a genre-defining component of the show, not merely as a plot device. I would suggest, though, that we consider merging this into an artifacts page, as there are several artifacts collected on Supernatural_(TV_series) already. Banazir (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Critical Reception" paragraph can be added to the main page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 76.71.117.31 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this anonymous IP has no other edit than this "vote". Afd is not a voting procedure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's far from perfect, but it is showing signs of "getting there". A couple of references, and critical reception. As I say, it's not great, but from what I see it has the potential to be OK. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does everyone agree that the sections "The Bullets" and "the use of the weapon" should not be in Wikipedia? It's just trivia and original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Story-internal, definitely. Trivia, possibly. But how is it original research? It is legitimate to refer to the episode itself, and to cite it as a source, when documenting objective, quantifiable observations. For example, it would not constitute original research to simply state that in the third U.S. presidential debate of 2008, Senator Obama wore a red tie and Senator McCain wore a blue tie; the videorecording suffices as a reliable source and no third-party report is needed. Counting the number of times a weapon has been used, when it was introduced within the story as a limited-use artifact, is similar. I gather your concern is that the list is a plot detail of no interest beyond the show, and I agree. Details of this kind should be transwikied to (say) the Super-Wiki. I will do this in the next few days. Banazir (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "reception" is extremely trivial and the rest is just unnecessary. Merge it if the fictional content is important to the series and not already included in the main article. TTN (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree that the Critical Reception section is "extremely trivial", because it's still a work in progress. Some work needs to be done to meet reliable sourcing standards per WP:RS, but in this case I think it's preferable to 1) move what belongs in the wiki for the show (fictional content), b) absorb what belongs in the plot summary for the show (or the season summaries), and c) add relevant material concerning the story-external historical fiction aspects. Regarding (2), I've proposed forking a general "artifacts" page, as there are is at least one (Ruby's knife) of comparable importance to the Colt story-internally, and at least one of compararable real-world significance (Dean's Impala). Banazir (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage of a fictional object with no real world notability outside the context of the TV series it appears in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles cited in the Critical Reception section, particularly "On TV: Mythologies aren't made quickly" from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, establish real-world notability as an example of historical fiction. Please note the new article (Kripke interview regarding the historical fiction spinoff idea) that I cited in this discussion above, but have not yet linked. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fictional weapon with no notability. -- nips (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As mentioned above, the Seattle P-I review that discusses various story mythoi in present-day TV shows cites The Colt as a real history tie-in for Supernatural. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's a completely trivial mention - a single line with no context or expansion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the delete votes above, this article displays noteability through independent sources. Thus, claims of it being trivial are wrong. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a trivial mention in a article that provides a summary of the series and mentions the weapon in passing, providing absolutely no insight into it's significant or well anything... The second is a blog review about the first episode where the weapon turns up. So just more descriptive summary. Those references show that the show has notability, they do not show that the weapon has notability outside the context of the show. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to the keep vote above, this article does not display notability through independent sources. There are two: one mentions the pistol only extremely briefly in passing, and the other is just a summary of the episode, not the pistol itself. Thus, the subject of the article lack significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and therefore fails our notability guideline. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Anything sourced should be in the series article, but the sources are all trivial mentions of the weapon, not enough to show independant notability.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.