Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction


 * 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. This is clearly a spinoff of pretty clearly originated here on Wikipedia. This undercuts the keep arguments, which boil down to "this is an important motif, so we should list examples of it." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A companion nomination to Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination) - list of examples to the article which is voted for deletion as original research. - 7-bubёn >t 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My keep argument is in the other nomination.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete entirely original research, unreferenced and generally vague.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Cool list, perhaps worth saving on one's own computer, but there's no question that it's totally unsourced and original research from beginning to end. The "don't look!!!" theme is fairly common (i.e., don't look or you'll (a) turn into a pillar of salt (b) turn to stone (c) go crazy (d) spend hours typing at a computer, etc.) Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's the commonness of the theme that makes it worth describing. It's just about rare enough that we can probably list all notable examples, but common enough that there's a clear need to describe it. JulesH (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Retitle Almost all of this would be usable under one or more other article titles, such as Evil eye in fiction, or even added to the article on Evil eye, which has no corresponding list of uses in fiction or cultural references. DGG (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA suggests that we don't accumulate things "in popular culture", "in fiction", etc., which are insufficiently notable to be discussed in academia. - 7-bubёn >t 04:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA says nothing of the sort: it is concerned only with how information is structured, and explicitly does not offer any guidance on "types of content".--Father Goose (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing but trivia which is actively discouraged on Wikipedia within articles and as an article it must pass the notability guidelines. As it stands now, the article is nothing but original research on top of original research (since its parent article is also OR). As the motif of harmful sensation itself is currently under debate at AfD the chance that the topic of its appearances in fiction is notable is slim to none.  Them  From  Space  05:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Father Goose has explained why WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply, and I've explained (and sourced) that the original article isn't WP:OR.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any other way of interpreting "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." in a way that favors this article.  Them From  Space  17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts aren't "miscellaneous". They're a timeline of fictional works that all deal with related concepts, i.e. sensory experiences that can cause harm to those who experience them.   This is no more miscellaneous than, say, Weapons in science fiction, which was kept by quite a wide margin when it was brought to AFD. JulesH (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Weapons in science-fiction" is a notable concept, "motif of harmful sensation in fiction" is not. Even if "motif of harmful sensation" is a notable concept, its appearances in fiction is a different subject entirely. If it wouldn't be, it would be within the parent article.  Them  From  Space  18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOT - wikipedia is not a collection nor catalog of various things. We don't have "examples of wearing shoes", "examples of books that describe falling from the 13th floor", etc. Not to say that the article is a spin-off of an original research. Laudak (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider alternate titles per DGG's suggestion. A collection of information on the history of a clearly important recurrent motif in fictional works, chronicling the development of the idea in the form of a timeline.  I see nothing wrong with this article. JulesH (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete research + synthesis. Unlikely to come up with a better title - see also arguments at Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination). pablo hablo. 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you decide to delete, could someone please tell me where I could find a copy, as I teach creative writing and I often direct people to this page. I also need to find the original article which was deleted as it won't be cached permanently. Thanks. Xanthoxyl (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination) was closed as delete, so any possible merge/redirect to that page is out of the question.  Them From  Space  17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a literary theme with an obscure psychology - interesting. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It isn't original research, but common sense.  When you list the names of characters in a series, is it original research that you looked up the information yourself in the book to find out their names, they not listed in a third party published review anywhere?  The information is fine, and how it was gotten is fine.  Use common sense not wikilawyering please.   D r e a m Focus  17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * there is no such literary term "motif of harmful sensation". Therefore you cannot have definite rule to fill this list. If I go deaf because of the bomb explosion, is it "harmful sensation" ? Y guess very yes. Lets add all books about modern wars here,. then. - 7-bubёn >t 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic and title need work but the material is execllent and should certainly be preserved per our editing policy for further development. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a reasonable title with verifiable inclusion criteria, and I will happily work with you. - 7-bubёn >t 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about List of works of fiction that describe sensory input that is harmful to those who perceive it? Long, but an accurate description of all the items on this list. JulesH (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Way too broad as to the original intentions. How about adding to this list books which describe people who became deaf because of shell and bomb explosions? How about about people sneezing to death after a tobacco snuff? How about peoples got blind after looking into the sun? How about people accidentally touched a hot iron, stumbled and smashed their brains on the mantelpiece? How about I shout you stumble (a quite harmful sensory input it may be)? How about evil hypnosis? (you look at these rotating spirals and next thing you know you are happily cutting your own throat). I may bring much more. BTW pls see and be impressed with the Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather.  - 7-bubёn >t 00:41, 3 April 2009 (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.