Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAL 9000 in popular culture (2nd 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

HAL 9000 in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previously deleted through this process; recreated; still seems to be an indiscriminate list of popular culture references. Kansan (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article can serve no purpose Completly unsourced, barely notable, fancruft trivia.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It does serve a purpose, in that is aggregates the knowledge of the cultural concept of Hal 9000 and the use of that knowledge in common culture. An aggragation of knowledge exists no where else on the web. Sure the article needs some work, but it can be cleaned up, sourced added etc. Its is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is notable as a cultural concept, this should be reliably sourced, and I see no such assertion. Furthermore, such an aggregation existing nowhere else online is not a reason to keep. Kansan (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, I know you want to delete it. You have already stated your arguments for deletion. Let us discuss it first. Let me state mine. Wikipedia is extremely bad at providing different views of information, that any modern database design engineer would spit at, because of it's crudity. It tied to a simple textual model that is extremly rigid in it's delivery of meaning and context. Simple articles like these could be created in seconds and tore down in any modern knowledge management system. But for this system, you can't do that, so we need static views of information, that otherwise can't be created. A reader can't sit down pull that information out of several articles without hours or days. So these types of articles are extremly useful.scope_creep (talk) 21:45, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, but my point isn't just that; it's that the reason you've given to keep could be used to justify keeping almost any list. In fact, It's useful is specifically listed as an argument not to use in these discussion. Kansan (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The nom is an argument for improvement not deletion. The list on its face doesn't meet the Wikipedia definition for indiscriminate patsw (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delayed fuse delete&mdash;I suggest giving it six months to cite what entries can be cited, then move the rest to a trivia sub-page off the talk page. If nothing can be cited, then it should go.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This vote does not support the nomination, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no deadline to provide cites.  If you want some cites, add them. This argues for improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete - it was a random and unsourced list, is currently, and is likely to remain thus. Although I feel terrible ... poor Hal is always being deleted. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also here: an argument for improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - as a repost of previously deleted material. If not considered eligible for speedy, then delete as a repository of unreferenced trivia and original research. "This one TV show has a computer with a name that's kind of like HAL 9000 and this other show has an episode with a computer that says 'Dave'" is not the basis of a Wikipedia article. A Radish for Boris (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the speedy. It's already at AfD, please don't try to circumvent discussion of it,once started. As for the "re-creation" issue, that was three years ago and non-admins have no way to see if it bears any relation to the previous article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the backhanded accusation of bad faith. If it's eligible for speedy then it's eligible for speedy whether an AFD is opened or not. There's nothing in the speedy deletion guidelines that says otherwise. A Radish for Boris (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A Radish for Boris has been blocked as a sock of User:Otto4711, better known in these parts as User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * KeepHAL is a big enough influence that there's plenty here for an article, even after removing the cruft. Once again, these items each need to be sourced - being "obvious influences" isn't enough (even when true), as that's WP:OR. Cleanup still isn't the same thing as deletion though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And where are the reliable sources that discuss the subject "HAL 9000 in popular culture"? A Radish for Boris (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is easily sourced - see Science in popular culture, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you think about it, the article itself, is the sources. Its utter nonsense to say that because their isn't a definitive web page or book, apart from Colonel Wardens reference, somewhere on the web, to establish notability, doesn't make it not notable. Its a core part of popular culture, especially in geekdom and the science fiction folks and has been parodied more times over the last 40 years, than I can shake a stick at. The fact that nobody has sat down and aggregated that knowledge somewhere else, doesn't make it less notable either. The reality is that is taken for granted that is part of popular culture, otherwise it would drop of the cultural map and be forgotten about. Keep the article. scope_creep (talk) 19:18, 12 october 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-referenced, useful article. It's not like we're going to run out of shelf space anytime soon.  AkankshaG (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the parent article (from where it should not have been split in the first place, or Keep - can be sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SMerge back to HAL 9000. This list could be endless, but in the end all this list says is "Hal 9000 has often been referenced in popular culture." Only a selected few entries are needed to make this case, and would in fact make a decent section in the main article. – sgeureka t•c 06:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup There's a bunch of worthless, poorly phrased junk in here, but I don't doubt that it can, in fact, be cleaned up. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess Keep cuz I kinda like these things (and I've never understood why the media example itself can't be the reference. An obscure book or magazine no one has access to is fine as a ref, but a TV show widely available on DVD is unacceptable?!), but my purpose in posting here isn't so much to influence whether it stays or goes, but to ask that should this article get nuked, why can't it be turned into a redirect to HAL 9000, and if you're really worried about it being brought back, then make it a protected redirect. If deletion in all forms (Grrrr...) is somehow an absolute necessity under WP:BORING,NOFUN&CRUEL, then would it be possible to move it to Annex Wiki or WikiList, and by that I mean use the export and import functions to properly transfer the contents, history included, and in doing so credit all of the contributors. It's too late for that to be done with List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The fact that this not only doesn't get done in most instances of this kind of deletion, but worse yet doesn't appear to even be considered is a beef I have with Wikipedia. Think it doesn't belong here and should be wiped out? Fine, but just don't take away the capability users have of transferring the content to where it can be relocated and considered appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.251 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that: Per User:Casliber. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with the codicil that the references be added.  Skier Dude  ( talk  06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient   material and sourcing. This is possibly the most famous fictional computer, and would consequently be expected,as it does, to be celebrated in popular culture. Dpo fsr from there being need for a section with only a selected few items, there is need for an extensive listing. we aim an full encyclopedic  coverage, not just selected highlights. This isnot an abreidge encyclopedia .    DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect or Merge. This is a list of appearances of HAL 9000 in other media. Such a list of appearances is not an article. It has no analysis, and is a content fork of the HAL 9000 article. That article shamefully makes no mention at all of the resonance that HAL 9000 has had in popular culture. I really dislike forking out these "... in popular culture" pages, not because the topic of "... in popular culture" is somehow bad, but because it is a violation of the WP:Neutral point of view policy when the main article is "sanitized" of pop culture. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:18, 18 October 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.