Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human suit


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor plot device with no apparent real-world notability. PROD that was contested twice. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support deletion. Not even any coverage of this as a plot device. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable and I have recently started development of it. Deletion is not helpful in this and would be contrary to our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has existed since 23 March 2006. How much longer do you need?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. How can this ever be anything but a List of things that disguised themselves as humans? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, hard to see where this could possibly go. And the Jesus mention is a tad bizarre. Moreschi (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't see this article being much more than a) a list of random stuff, b) a compilation of fan-cruft, c) a compilation of conspiracy theories or d) all of the above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete although I confess myself intrigued to see what Col. Warden will come up with. Jesus' human suit must have been v. stretchy.  pablo hablo. 16:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: the docetism material is unrelated, the 'Science Fiction' material is a combination of OR and material based upon a right-winger's joke that Al Gore was an alien (meant as a joke=not a RS if taken seriously). Nothing here to indicate that a coherent topic exists, let alone a notable one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per every delete comment above. I highly doubt Colonel Warden is going to produce reliable secondary or tertiary sources discussing the phenomenon of the "human suit".PelleSmith (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is this topic bizarre, especially the Jesus thing, but I can't find any reliable secondary sources and I strongly doubt anyone else can either. 70.136.128.18 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Delete - I don't see how this article could ever be anything but WP:OR. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrafn is right about stretching the one source cited. Several of the films mentioned do not, in fact, involve any such items.  The Thing doesn't, for example.  And the source doesn't even claim that they do in the first place.  PelleSmith seems right to doubt, moreover.  I can find no sources that discuss this idea.  It's worth documenting, but no-one in the world at large has actually properly done so.  Note to SF critics reading this: The world is in need of some good sources that link the Slitheen to the Visitors to the Chingers in Bill, the Galactic Hero.  But until those sources exist, there's nothing to support an article here. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that it meets any notability requirement at the present time, is incorrectly categorised (though that can be fixed), and is a WP:OR magnet. When the WP:OR is removed there is nothing left. CWs "development" was detrimental to the article. Verbal chat  09:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering your opinion Verbal. A more cultivated view is that the Colonel's improvements are, as ever, most  excellent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha yes, like a yoghurt. Mostly trivia and non-encyclopaedic, and I'd like to see an WP:RS that some early Christians believed Jesus was actually God in a "human suit". Verbal  chat  14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We could do that, if youre agreeable for us to exspand the scope of the article so it refers to a more broadly defined disguise, not specifically a costume or item of clothing, then as  long as the WP:RSs refer to the concept they wont have to include the exact phrase "human  suit". FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lets not narrowly focus on any one area here, this fascinating topic is broader than even religion and sci fi. The Human Suit concept is  woven  into the fabric of everday life in a variety of ways,  as attested by its thousands of Google hits and hundreds of Google news archive hits. I share the view that the Jesus mention is misleading - as well as being a Holy incarnation of God, Jesus was in fact fully human,  so he'd have no need of a human suit. However wikkipedia is about verifiability not Truth, so as a signifcant minority used to belief the heresy there is no harm in mentioning it.  If anyone would like advice on more appropiate forums to make a stand for Truth, drop by my talk.  Several sources have been added,  but not of the highest quality so we havent neccessarily crossed the noteability threshold yet.  However many of the most promising sources are pay to view, so there is no reason to think non trivial coverage in reliable sources doesnt exist.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And we are now moving towards fan-cruft. Still not appropriate for Wikipedia WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Simonm223: FeydHuxtable appears to have WP:INDISCRIMINATEly dumped in every usage he could find of 'human suit' used as a metaphor (not as its literal meaning), as though this is somehow relevant. Last I checked, Wikipedia was not meant to be a dictionary of metaphors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I scanned a good 30 or so sources Hrafn, and can assure you I was most selective about which ones I added. The bands calling themselves Human Suit dont seem to be using the term  metaphorically (figuratively perhaps.)  The film  titled does actually feature a literal  Human Suit.  The description of an angel running round in a human suit was  possibly meant literally. Dont forget  that a good 67% of Americans recognise the truth that Angels are literally active in the world. And many folk tend  to view the world with simple tangible concepts such as a human suit, rather  than a more sophisticated understanding of  the  miraculous transformation that allows angels to assume human form.  I tend to agree  livinginahumansuit.com  is using the phrase metaphorically, but that possibility is surely fairly presented with the correct use of quotes? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I would hate to see what you consider to be being unselective then. Are you claiming that the bands believe they're aliens, or that the murderer thought his "well regarded" victim was an alien? That's WP:Complete bollocks. the Biblical material you dumped in was pure WP:Synthesis. The whole thing has as much coherence as a Monty Python skit. Spiced ham anybody? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be, as it wasnt the murderer who described the victim as an angel running round in a human suit. The natural habitat of Angels is heaven, so in a sense they are aliens when they come to dwell among us on earth.  Anyway ,while an interesting and enjoyable discussion this is all getting rather tangental. Im taking this page and the article off my watchlist for a few days, and hopefully others arrive to help rescue the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 67% of americans may believe the delusion that minor godlings float around playing harps but that doesn't make this article notable, encyclopedic or in line with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the support of those above who've already articulated my views. Uncle G has it right: nothing to support an article here. B figura  (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication that this could ever be a suitable article, and no coherent argument for its retention. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure there must be something nontrivial to write about the metaphoric uses of the human-suit trope to refer to the alienation inherent in modern life, or whatever, but until someone digs up a sufficient number of reliable sources that do so this will remain a worthless pile of in-popular-culture trivia. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No mention of the topic in reliable secondary sources.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No RS found detailing this subject.  Triplestop  x3  23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on Google Book search at the top of the AFD. It is mentioned, as something creatures wear to disguise themselves as humans.  many notable sources call it a human suit.  I'll see about adding some references to the article.   D r e a m Focus  14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The expression was in even used by a very influential science fiction writer, in a bestselling novel of his. See Ender's Shadow By Orson Scott Card, page 185.   D r e a m Focus  14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Inside MIIB: Men in black II By Brad Munson, is the official book of that movie, and it refers to the alien's disguise as a human suit. Two other books referring to that movie refer to it as such also, when I use Google book search for the term and one of the movie's the article says it was featured in.  I added that reference to the article.  Other things shouldn't be too hard to find.   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added more references. There was a short story published in a notable magazine in 1957 which called it a human suit, there an alien that squeezed into it each day, to pretend to be a human being.  Anyway, will all those who said delete do to lack of references, please look over what is added, and reconsider your position.   D r e a m Focus  14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a mix of trivia and OR. Also, these are a few stories that include the term, or variations, but we've yet to see any significant coverage of the term of use itself. It doesn't pass any notability guide, and is unlikely to. Verbal chat  15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the official book for a massively successful movie, Men in Black, calling it a "human suit", an alien hiding inside of it to pass as human, doesn't count in your opinion? And the other books I mentioned cover it just fine.   D r e a m Focus  22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the official book of MiB (the movie was notable) uses this term, but doesn't discuss or explore the concept in anything other than a superficial in universe way. The same as with the other books. If you had a reference called "An analysis of the Human Suit in Science Fiction" that would go some way towards addressing my concerns. Verbal chat  15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and in consideration of the work that has gone into this article since it was first nominated, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in reliable sources and many books (Who didn't actually look?). The article will benefit from expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article has not been altered significantly since it was AfDed, so WP:The Heymann Standard does not apply. It's sourcing continues to range from none-existent (most of the SciFi examples) to (tangential &) extremist (Is Gore An Alien?) to questionable. The available sources do not demonstrate that this is a well-formed, coherent, term of art, but rather that it is a simple English description or metaphor (with "… in a human suit" being no different than "… in a cheap suit", "… in a tuxedo", "… in a dog suit", "… in sheep's clothing", etc). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved. That it still doesn't meet any inclusion criteria after being improved isn't a reason to keep. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and sort out appropriate naming and if a merge would be best way to handle this subject which clearly should be included in the encyclopedia as an important and recurring theme in science fiction writing and storylines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you justify the "clearly should be included", with reference to policy and some evidence? For example, where is an WP:RS for this "important and recurring theme". Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Please understand that nobody is saying this trope isn't used in science fiction stories. What we need, to include a literary trope, is some evidence that it has been commented upon outside the direct context of the stories which use it.  A review that critiques the trope would be a good example.  Mentioning that a book about a movie says "so and so was wearing a human suit" doesn't really count. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To you, it doesn't count. To me, it does.  I believe it is common sense.  You have a notable aspect found in many different science fiction stories.  Its called the same thing, and is about an alien living in a human shaped body to pass as a human being.  It has been proven as something that exist throughout science fiction, is clearly named a "human suit", and always features an alien in a human suit for the purpose of passing as a human.  Think for yourself, don't wait and let someone do it for you.  You do NOT need someone publishing a book of science fiction tropes, and listing it, to tell you its notable.   D r e a m Focus  16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is found in many, but only a minority of all SciFi. You may think it common sense, but you'll have to change our policies to get them to agree with your view. What you describe would be OR. If you don't want to wait for others to do it, write it yourself and get it published (I might do it actually!) Until then, without RS about this, no thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would encourage editors who believe this article to be notable to show it by providing some non-primay RS that discusses the trope. Comments such as the ones here are not helpful for improving the article or for demonstrating why it shouldn't be at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tangentially Related Comment I noticed that there is no Common Tropes of Science Fiction article. Such an article, with proper critical references and without fan-cruft would be a very good one.  Anyone want to help? Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I renamed the article to Human disguise and added several citations to coverage in reliable sources, but those trying to delete the article have undone my work. Very uncivil and unhelpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Had you provided a single second party reference using human disguise most of those of us on the Delete side of this discussion would probably have withdrawn the AfD. As it is all you did was rename the article and proceed to expand the list of fan-cruft.  Furthermore the person who undid your change to the title noted that discussion of changing the title should proceed after the AfD rather than WP:BOLDly doing it before the AfD has completed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Improving an article and renaming it to a more appropriate title need not wait until after the deletion discussion is over. That would be ridiculous, especially if the article is headed for deletion in its previous state.


 * If you don't care to improve the article, at least have the common courtesy not to interfere with those who are taking the time to source and expand it. Maybe you'd care to add something about the use of human disguises in stories about Satan such as those by Milton?


 * No objection has been made to the new title which is more commonly used for the science fiction aspect, as well as the for broader subject. It's been reverted as a means to try and get the article deleted. That kind of behavior borders on vandalism and is very damaging to the encyclopedia. Please refrain from engaging in it. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a source. Any reliable source that comments on this trope!  This isn't vandalism, this is application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As has tried to circumvent the AfD by creating Human disguise distinct from Human suit but with identical content I do ask that both pages be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a new article in good faith because you and Verbal objected to this article being broadened and renamed (and reverted my attempts to work on it and improve it by deleting any additions of content and sources expanding its coverage). Now you are saying a broad article on a subject that you said couldn't be covered in this article (which you insist must narrowly focus on the Sci Fi aspect of human suits). And that sourcing and content that you said shouldn't be included in this article can't be covered elsewhere either? My head is spinning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply, it's an abuse of process and in the way you did it violates the GFDL. Propose a merge or rename and try to convince people to change their !votes to keep. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question I see WP:INDISCRIMINATE thrown around a lot here, what part of that are you talking about, as it does not fall under Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports or FAQs.--kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply"Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." from item 1. This has not been done in this article. This is all that I am asking for.  Heck! I've asked for one reliable source discussing the trope.  That's all.  One source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about a work of fiction. I think you may be confused. There are several reliable sources in the article and additional ones at Google News. It's very strange that you remove the addition of sources and content and then complain that there isn't more sourcing and content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has alternately been about


 * A trope within a genre of fiction.
 * An indiscriminate list of things disguised as humans in fiction and religion.
 * A trope within the Men_in_Black_(film) film series.


 * At various times. The only connecting thread is that it is about fiction. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment For additional information on use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE read the WP:FANCRUFT essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Idea. Resurrect Disguise, so that it does not redirect to deception. Currently that's a dreadful article, unbalanced to include a great chunk of material about ethics in psychology research. So it could do with some attention from those of us who have been drawn to this debate. Include a reasonably sized section on disguise in fiction, and the examples from science fiction can go in there. If it gets to the point that there's too much for one article, we could break out Disguise in fiction and then perhaps Disguise in science fiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are far more disguises than just a human suit. A disguise could be a person wearing a simple mask or a fake beard.   D r e a m Focus  22:37, 19 October 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.