Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu


 * 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   merge to Zulu (film). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu

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

Blatant collection of OR and TRIVIA. Content fork which manifestly fails our own policies and guidelines about how to handle such information, including MOSFILM. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Zulu (film), surely.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a list of trivia. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (per S Marshall) or weak keep, the article could use some work but the subject itself is suitable for wikipedia. Some of the entries are trivial and many might by original research but there are referenced data in there; it can be cleaned up.  For a film about historical events to have a referenced section about its inaccuracies is not inappropriate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. If we keep this we should then create equal articles for Titanic (1997 film), Valkyrie (film) and the like. WP:NN as a standalone topic, but still deserves mention. -- RUL3R *flaming 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Merging is not appropriate: it's well-established Wiki policy that articles on films must be confined to sources which relate specifically to the film and criticism thereof and cannot bring in general history.  And the issue of the accuracy (or not) of films or plays or books depicting actual events is an entirely appropriate subject for Wiki articles: a perfectly valid branch of human knowledge, and one for which there is most assuredly public need or demand. Virtually any viewer of a "historical" film wonders to a greater or lesser degree "but how 'true' was it?" whether Zulu or Valkyrie or Titanic.  If the complaint is based on OR, then what is needed is citation tags, not elimination.  I partially agree with RUL3R: "Historical inaccuracies in X work of fiction" ought to be an article class, and one maintained separate from the main article on "X work of fiction," in which external comparisons are inappropriate. (NB: "Trivia" is in the eye of the beholder.  WP's mission is broadly inclusive, not exclusive.)  Solicitr (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia might be broadly inclusive, but lists of miscellaneous facts and original research are explicitly forbidden. I think it should be deleted, but, at best, this mess deserves a few lines in the main article for the film, after it has been heavily cleaned up, converted to prose, and sourced. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it requires cleanup and sourcing badly: but it *cannot* be merged into the main article; nor is it a 'miscellany' as you put it save in its lack of organization and encyclopedic form. Solicitr (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @037  · 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to the film's page. A section under this header is appropriate there, but hopefully it will be treated better than a few pages of listcruft.  Them  From  Space  03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * merge to the main article on the film. I see no reason why it cannot be merged, nor is it a list of miscellaneous facts; it's a list of historical inaccuracies, and that is a proper part of the discussion of every notable historical fiction. If the film wikiproject thinks otherwise, that instance of OWNership should be rejected by the wider community. No one project gets to make policy. As I see it, it's an intrinsic part of discussing the plot, and a good example of real-world information, which we generally encourage in articles on fiction.   DGG (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Zulu (film), it is a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would this be a POV fork, "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy"? Solicitr (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's basically "things the film got wrong" without explicitly saying so. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Things the film got wrong" isn't POV if they are objectively wrong, not just someone's opinion. The anachronistic use of WWI Webley Mk VI revolvers is a fact, not a point of view. Solicitr (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And why would you need to point that out in an article about a film that by its nature cannot accurately portray reality? Unless tons of reliable sources explicitly discuss inaccuracies in the film (that is, a source says "Zulu incorrectly portrayed this fact", not "Zulu got this wrong; this source says this really happened . . .", there's no need to document them. By the way, a number of sources don't look acceptable, and quite a few others are used to synthesize arguments. The article is a big POV mess. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - It's not a POV fork, but it's an unnecessary fork. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really "inaccuracies", but actually "things the film got wrong". Not just trivia, but "blatant trivia". But tell me, how is it OR? Perhaps, 'insidiously cited as academic consensus' OR? Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep... not a POV fork but I don't know if it can stand on its own. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:25, 10 August 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.