Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot (fiction)
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The result was Withdrawn. – sgeureka t•c 09:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reboot (fiction)[edit]
- Reboot (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the GNG Polarpanda (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has poor sourcing, but this is process is being used for many new shows/movies. Not the best per WP standards, but notable nonetheless. Angryapathy (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, if not Snowball Keep The article most definitely needs references, but the term is already or is becoming an industry standard. A Google search for Star Trek reboot generates approximately 600,000 hits, many of them in mainstream media.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of those discuss reboots in general? Polarpanda (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly very few, but then the search was for Star Trek reboot, not the general term. The best example I can come up with, discussing rebooting in general but in the context of Star Trek, is the reboot proposal by Bryce Zabel and J. Michael Straczynski in 2004. I'm not sure if this is where the term was originally coined, but in the context of Star Trek is gives a detailed explanation of what is meant by "rebooting" the series.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of those discuss reboots in general? Polarpanda (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above comments from Vulcan's Forge. Even if the article's prose quality and referencing are very much wanting, deletion would be detrimental to Wikipedia given the wide use of the term in the media industry. The assertion that the topic fails to meet the general notability guideline therefore, in my view, seems a little forced; I'd argue that it is inherently notable, despite having a Wikipedia article which currently does not go very far to reflect that. The term is frequently bandied about in discussions about films/movies, most notably and recently the new Star Trek film but also 2006's Casino Royale (which still generates 22,000 Google hits even with a narrow-band search) and 2005's Batman Begins (63,000 results). Category:Television reboots was recently deleted but a similar discussion for films was closed with consensus to keep, since its articles make legitimate and sourced reference to the term. However, this page, as it stands, is in serious need of re-writing and/or re-structuring in places and much more sourcing to flesh out the "Etymology" section. A referenced critical and analytical response section is required, not just a list of examples (of which all but one are unsourced). What does or does not constitute "rebooting" a film franchise remains to be unequivocally resolved on Wikipedia, but why delete the "Reboot" article when numerous external sources are using the term, and when it would automatically produce a redlink on a great many articles? SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "a referenced critical and analytical response section is required" but impossible to create due to lack of sources. Polarpanda (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the article is simply put up for deletion instead. Never mind the probable negative effects of such a deletion, e.g. a reader browsing an article on a reboot film will suddenly find themselves without a link to follow if they are looking for further information on the subject, no matter how humbly written and presented. A response section is hardly "impossible to create" due to a lack of any old sources, but reliable ones. As any Google search shows, there are in fact plenty of sources available, and some of them must surely be trustworthy and relevant to reboots as a general concept as well as in the context of film. There is no deadline on Wikipedia for users who would be willing to seek out such useful sources and expand the article accordingly. Consequently, I would suggest that we allow time for this to happen, and not just erase all existence of this article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If some of them "must surely be trustworthy and relevant to reboots as a general concept" why don't you go find one? Polarpanda (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the article is simply put up for deletion instead. Never mind the probable negative effects of such a deletion, e.g. a reader browsing an article on a reboot film will suddenly find themselves without a link to follow if they are looking for further information on the subject, no matter how humbly written and presented. A response section is hardly "impossible to create" due to a lack of any old sources, but reliable ones. As any Google search shows, there are in fact plenty of sources available, and some of them must surely be trustworthy and relevant to reboots as a general concept as well as in the context of film. There is no deadline on Wikipedia for users who would be willing to seek out such useful sources and expand the article accordingly. Consequently, I would suggest that we allow time for this to happen, and not just erase all existence of this article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "a referenced critical and analytical response section is required" but impossible to create due to lack of sources. Polarpanda (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, needs work but is a notable practice in the entertainment industry. Someidiot (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I see someone has actually found general coverage of the phenomenon, so I would like to thank SuperMarioMan and withdraw this nomination. Polarpanda (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thanks, Polarpanda. I inserted more sources with this edit; and this other article which I've just found also explains the term. SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (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.