Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (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. I realize that this will be controversial. But verifiability is an important issue here. This article appears to have been constructed by defining a genre or style and then finding things that fit that definition. For instance, I don't believe any of the games in "Dieselpunk and the gaming industry" have in fact been classified as dieselpunk by their creators or by reviewers writing in reliable sources. The same is true for many of the movies mentioned (Inglourious Basterds?). This is textbook OR/SYNTH. Moreover, while there are a large number of citations, the ones that support the 'dieselpunk' usage are not reliable sources, and the ones that are reliable sources do not support the 'dieselpunk' usage. Lacking reliable sources for defining the subject of the article, keeping the article is not a viable option. Shi meru  06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dieselpunk
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has been deleted before, but this version is different enough to deserve its own discussion. It does exhibit the same flaws as earlier attempts. Like previous versions, it has major problems with original research, verifiability, and notability. It attempts to retroactively place creative works into a genre when their creators had no intent to do so, or likely any knowledge of it. Unlike former versions, this article cites many sources. However, very few of them qualify as reliable sources. Most are blogs, journals, forums, or other self-published sources. One of them even relies on a deleted version of the nominated article. - Eureka Lott 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: see this thread for off-wiki discussion of the article. - Eureka Lott 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't had a chance to read the article in too much detail or look through the sources so I'm holding off on a !vote for now. I am wondering if merging this into the more established steampunk genre may work. If one or two decent sources are found for dieselpunk as a genre, but not enough to warrant a whole article, we can jettison the original research and retroactive application of the term on earlier, unaffiliated works, and just keep a paragraph indicating that this is an offshoot of steampunk, which it clearly is.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a paragraph on the subject at Cyberpunk derivatives. It was rewritten at the same time that the article was posted. - Eureka Lott 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, the article does not reference the previously deleted version. When I first started editing this page, that is one of the first things I noticed and corrected.
 * I personally feel that there is enough new information in this page and enough references that it is warranted that it stays. The biggest drawback that the original version(s) of this topic had was that there were absolutely no references at all. This article attempts to correct that, insofar as possible, and that there are a significant amount of reliable sources to allow it to stand. Keep. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact there are no reliable source references that verify any of the key information in the article. It remains completely unsourced.- Wolfkeeper 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, with respect, one of the major focuses of this article is to establish that, while it shares the same -punk suffix as steampunk, and while a lot of steampunk LARPers also dress in a dieselpunk style, dieselpunk itself is not "clearly" just an offshoot of steampunk. While steampunk is a subculture that was spawned from a genre of science fiction, dieselpunk is, conversely, a pervasive genre of lowbrow art which has recently spawned a subculture. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) Term is clearly in use, & must mean something. Whether everything in the article belongs there is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Issues with original research, verifiability, and notability are best handled by editing adding tags, removing uncited/poorly cited material. If that leaves a stub or something that needs merging or deleting it can be brought up then.  The claim that "It attempts to retroactively place creative works into a genre when their creators had no intent to do so, or likely any knowledge of it" is confusing intent & result.  If citable experts say that something was "the beginings of" a genre, "show signs of what was to become" a genre or are "proto"-genre then add them.  Creators often refuse labels because they like to see themselves as unique or are too close to their own work.  Deletion is not the answer, work is.  If you think this article needs deletion, remove bad citation, add cite tags, remove bad content, if you think it needs keeping find better citations.  Once that's been done we will be in a better position to decide what to do with it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Very regrettably after checking the references I am unable to convince myself that this is currently notable, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources attesting to its notability. The article is apparently, superficially, very, very good, but when you look into the details it comes apart like a wet paper bag, it references blogs and wikis and other self-published and user-supplied information sources far, far too much, to the extent that I was unable to find a single reliable source for this topic in the article. Lack of Notability from reliable sources = gone. Sorry.- Wolfkeeper 02:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep When Hollywood has been spending their size of budgets to make films like "Sky Captain" for some years now, I wonder how one can avoid seeing the currently widespread imagery of dieselpunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, so far as I can tell some of the references for this article are actually fabricated. The reference that "Sky Captain" is a dieselpunk movie it's just not there. Is it really dieselpunk? Perhaps it is, I don't know, but it's not referenced, well, there is a reference, but it doesn't match what the text says.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another movie they link to right after that is Brazil (film) (actually they link to the country Brazil), but Brazil far predates the idea of Dieselpunk. That's what I'm saying, every time I check something here, it fails to verify. IMO the article just isn't suitable for inclusion at the moment.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference to Sky Captain exactly matches what the text says. Fifteenth paragraph on the page. And that exactly matches with the most generic description of the genre, as stated in the lede, which is that it "combines the aesthetics of the interbellum period... with postmodern technology." (I didn't notice the Brazil link mix-up, I've changed that, thx.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make Sky Captain a dieselpunk movie; at best that's OR. And Brazil isn't dieselpunk. In fact, I can find no reliable source that any of the movies mentioned are dieselpunk. I've seen a lot of shoddy, or stub articles in my time, but this is something else.- Wolfkeeper 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sky Captain isn't "dieselpunk"; it's pan-genre retro-pulp, with some retro-futuristic elements reminiscient of late '30s sf pulps, plus stuff from aviation pulps, oriental adventure pulps, etc., in which respect it's really in the same class as Raiders of the Lost Ark. "Dieselpunk" may be a valid subgenre of retro, but it's not a distinct genre in itself. RandomCritic (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The desire to delete this article seems to be under bias by those who have not taken the time to either 1: Research and improve, or 2: ask someone to research and improve. If you're not helping you just might as well be doing nothing. Have a nice day :) Xx IzzyReal xX (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which policy are you referring to with your above comments? This is not a vote. - Wolfkeeper 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The term -punk for this makes about as much sense as the -gate suffix for any scandal or -core for noisy music. But there's a certainly a topic here as there are numerous examples of retrospective nostalgia for the modernist era and it just requires work to refine and develop it in accordance with our editing policy.  Consideration should be given to merger with similar topics such as Retro-futurism.  That has a better title for the concept with more usage in scholary works. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retro-futurism is certainly related, but it's broader than Dieselpunk (and thus not a good merge). Retro-futurists are usually cleaner and far less oily than Dieselpunks (personal jet pack exhaust being much less sooty) - there's a huge genre of A*n R*nd-inspired "glistening city spires" stuff that's clearly retro-futurist, but has little to do with Dieselpunk. The practical aspects of the two scenes are also different: retro-futurism is mostly literary and artistic, with very few of the large-scale physical artefact and vehicle Maker groups that characterise both Dieselpunk and Steampunk. Mutoid Waste Company (and others) began with the post-Mad Margaret apocalyptic vibe, but are now lovable Dieselpunk crusties. Arcadia Spectacular are another group that are distinctly Dieselpunk, with almost nothing in common with retro-futurism. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dieselpunk is broader than the Mad Max types; a lot of the diesels I know are more the swing/deco/noir types. And more into the arts than into the maker scene. (Hence the two "flavors" of dieselpunk, "Ottensian" and "Piecraftian".) Hard to tell where to fold this into if it were to be folded in somewhere; it's clearly retro-futurist, yet clearly an art movement, and also has some relation to it's "cousin" Steampunk (although that's based on a literary genre and has become largely a costume-fest in recent years...) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of why the article should be deleted. The material about the two flavors is based on this source, which is a conversation between User:Piecraft and User:Ottens, the primary authors of the first and second deleted versions of this very article. It's like Wolfkeeper pointed out - the entire article is a house of cards. - Eureka Lott 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The more narrowly "dieselpunk" is defined, the less likely it is to warrant a Wikipedia article. And the more focused it is on the ephemeral this-year discussions on blogs and wikis, the more it's going to give the impression of something made up in school.
 * Therefore I recommend: focus on the historical development of the genre and long-term stable elements (what has continuously characterized the genre for the last 10 years?). Avoid neologisms like "Ottensian" and "Piecruftian".  Don't bring technical squabbles between ephemeral fan groups into the article at all. Don't characterize something as "dieselpunk" unless you can find an independently verifiable (preferably published hard-copy) source that calls it that.  Anything else, either cut, or put into a section "Sources and Inspirations".
 * And if you really feel there's a strong distinction to be made between dieselpunk and retro-futurism, put that into the article -- with the verifiable evidence to back it up. It can't be just that you _feel_ there's a difference; there has to be a consensus among students of the genre (if any) that there is a difference. RandomCritic (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Time to stop sending it to afd. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the first discussion about this version of the article. Both earlier attempts were deleted. - Eureka Lott 11:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know that it is really worthy of having a full page, for the time being, however I do believe it warrants more than a paragraph on the Cyberpunk derivatives. If there were a full heading on the Steampunk page about this subgenre, however, I would be willing to argue against the inclusion of this page. Ophiucha (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Any internet search with the keyword "dieselpunk" will result in numerous hits, which indicates that it's an existing cultural phenomenon apart from steampunk and the other -punk genres. Because dieselpunk is young it does indeed create a challenge for notability. But this problem can be resolved over time as dieselpunk matures. One possible solution would be to keep the page but add a disclaimer that further improvement is needed for reliable sources. Larry442010 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The above keep votes are unfortunately not getting it. I think it needs to be deleted one more time, or preferably moved to user space. The topic is true but not verifiable. The wikipedia is Verifiability over truth. So we should not have this article right now until it becomes verfiable with reliable sources.- Wolfkeeper 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any verifiable elements into Retro-futurism, perhaps under a distinctive "dieselpunk" subheader, cross-ref to Steampunk et al. RandomCritic (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2010 (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.