Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAL 9000 in popular culture (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. While the "keep" !voters assert that there are many reliable sources available, they have not actually provided any that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Nothing but trivial, unsourced references. Obvious attempt to keep this material off the main Hal 9000 article. I have to wonder how the last version was considered "well referenced" when there wasn't a single reference on it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing but an unsourced listing of trivial name-drops and mentions without a central coherent topic, compiled through original research. This sort of material isn't appropriate here, in HAL 9000, or in any of our other articles. The page has no encyclopedic history worth restoring and none of this material is worth a merge.  Them From  Space  03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, a 19-kilobyte list of trivia mentions, none of which are sourced. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Big pile o' unsourced trivia. This article can serve no purpose...  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per ad nauseum OR/List arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on behalf of all the keeps from the last AfD, looks like it was just a few months ago.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As before, these individual items need sourcing, but the topic is a good one and AfD still isn't cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why is nobody sourcing it? Is it going to be somebody else's problem forever? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to dive in yourself. 8-)   Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to ask someone who doesn't believe in the page in the first place to go work on it. Even if sources are added, though, it is my opinion that such a list is still primarily original research unless secondary sources actually discussing the topic are found. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete still no references. Not one. I can understand suggesting we "keep" as a temporary measure give the article time to develop. But what will this develop into aside from either a list with nothing independent to WP:verify notability, or a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main HAL 9000 with WP:UNDUE information about every single damn thing that's ever referred to it? Despite months of protesting otherwise, this article has shown no hope of improvement. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and just source the references, which is trivial, as the primary sources are adequate. The use of a notable character in notable works is, as always, apprpropiate content. It's the real world equivalent  of WP:Build the web. As for the actual notability of the influence of HAL on popular culture, there is in fact a reference that should satify even who want the title as stated to be notable :      DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is most definitely a wealth of WP:RS secondary sourced information from whence to easily improve the quality of referencing for this page and its subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is original research by synthesis as there are not reliable third-party sources that treat the topic. In my opinion, the article is a list of loosely associated topics at best and primary research at worst. It does not meet the criteria of verifiability because no sources treat the topic "HAL 9000 in popular culture" and instead the article is an unneeded content fork composed exclusively of a big trivia section. Since there are no reliable sources that cover the topic of the article, it does not meet the general notability guideline and, therefore, there is no valid reason to keep this article. Jfgslo (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- I think Jfgslo and Shooterwalker have it right. This article is indeed synthesis because no reliable sources deal with the subject of HAL 9000 in popular culture, and the article is in fact just a big long pointless trivia section. Despite two previous AfDs, in which the community in good faith has allowed efforts to properly source the article, nothing whatsoever has been done. This must now be taken as evidence that the sources just aren't there. Reyk  YO!  06:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jfgslo has it exactly right. As does Randall Munroe. Deor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article may lack sources, I took about 5 minutes to find one from Variety, and sawe a bunch of others. The one i found was an article about how kids movies are loaded with pop culture references for their parents, and it mentions specifically the Hal 9000 reference in the movie Robots. So while the article needs work, it's not without merrit, and sources do exist. They should be added, and the article should not be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's topic is not "HAL 9000 in popular culture", it's a trivia-like article about cultural references in movies for kids so it doesn't show notability about the topic. Also, the HAL 9000 reference is merely a trivial mention, which does not show notability per the general notability guideline ("significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".) Jfgslo (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per wp:notcleanup an wp:itscruft. If there are problems with references, original research, synthesis, etc, the solution is to edit, not to delete. walk victor falktalk 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh? Is there a verifiable secondary source on the topic?  It seems to me that this article stripped of "original research, synthesis, etc" would be a blank page. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (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.