Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government warehouse (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. Looks like this one gets boxed up in Wikipedia's government warehouse Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Government warehouse (fiction)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Prod contested on the grounds of an AfD from 2005 (Articles for deletion/Government Warehouse). Fundamentally unencyclopedic topic. Literally nothing more to say about this than that it is a particularly cinematic metaphor for government coverup. The supposed examples are disparate and there are no reliable sources tying them together; any attempt to do so is therefore synthesis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like original research to me, followed by a list of examples. I'd be more interested if there were actually sources out there discussing government warehouses as a plot device, but looks like a delete.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been unable to find one anywhere more reliable than TV Tropes (which has a comprehensive one, but synthesis is one of TV Tropes's goals). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete A nice try at an article, but this is one for TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. It's not a clearly notable topic, and it loses focus by moving on to non-fictional archives, which suggests the author was running out of things to say. Lacks references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven years ago, in revisions such as it both had more to say and didn't lose focus.  And this despite my complaint back then that there were more verifiable things to say about real government warehouses, which someone else then took and turned into government warehouse (non-fiction) (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: not every sentence of an article can or should be spun out. Almost any fact repeated in multiple sources could, theoretically be made into its own article. "Hamsters are capable of elaborate digging and tunnels" could be spun out into an article called Tunneling ability of hamsters, no matter how many sentences could could write about the tunneling ability. At some point, you'll find yourself stuck repeating the lead over and over, and adding a long list of related articles and examples. I don't think this would ever have the right kind of WP:NOTABILITY, where the sources actually identify this as a notable phenomenon with numerous reliable facts that we can summarize. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not (or indeed even seven years ago as mentioned above).  In any case, you're talking about the subject of government warehouse (non-fiction).  This article is about fiction. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's evidence of my point: that the article would (at best) stuck repeating the same theme of government conspiracy over and over, with a long list of examples (based on original research no less). And yes, I am aware that we are deleting the fictional concept, not the real one. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. Stop the presses: the government has warehouses! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that would be government warehouse (non-fiction), about which there are indeed many verifiable things to say. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not TV Tropes (man we really need to have that section at WP:NOT). This article is just doomed to become a list of works that use this trope. Even a search for reliable sources fails to save this one. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - High time this went. I've checked out 10 different revisions in the page history and not found a time when the article didn't violate WP:GNG and WP:OR. In 8 years, nobody has ever demonstrated the subject itself has been the source of discussion in any reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note The idea that this is a "fundamentally unencyclopedic topic" is what has made two guttings of the article possible, years apart. These deletions without discussion, and the possibility that it could make article deletion possible, makes a mockery of the Talk Page, RFC and AfD processes. It will be tolerated and Wikipedia is the worse for that. Anarchangel (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note What would make Wikipedia worse would be if credence was given to your typical AFD rants which show mean understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and an unwavering belief that your opinions override consensus. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 06:25, 30 May 2012 (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.