Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville allusions


 * 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. The original research argument is persuasive. A trivial glance at the list shows that they are overwhelmingly not verifiable by watching the episode, despite assertion to the contrary. "Jonathan tells Clark "you were meant for much more important things than winning football games". Glen Ford's Jonathan Kent, in Superman, says very similar dialogue." That presumably requires watching the episode and another film; same with every other allusion that is to another film or the comics, they rely on original research by synthesis between two primary sources. "Clark is almost always seen wearing combinations of red, yellow and blue" would require watching, well, every episode in which Clark wears one or more of the three primary colours, if not sourced to a secondary rather than primary source. This is why encyclopaedia articles must rely predominantly on secondary sources; this article is clearly reliant on primary sources and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Smallville allusions


The content of this page is not encylopedic or verifiable as other than opinion. It is definate crystal ball work, as little of the content is documented as other than the editor's observations. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Slavlin 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this articles has been up for deletion before, or it was at least discussed before. The article, though probably on the crust isn't encyclopedic, the vast allusions that are constantly made reference to in the show make for some notability. Most shows do not do too much alluding in general, and this show has almost a half dozen references an episode. Most of this is not "crystal ball work" as just about all of the references are to previous things of the Superman history. There are certain elements that needs a source, but most is reference back to the comics or films, and can easily be verified by watching. Bignole 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * has been up for deletion. Uncle G 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wasn't sure. I know if you go there the topic was about this page as well. Bignole 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as canonical original research. This relies on interpreting primary sources, rather than simply reporting their content, which is not acceptable per WP:V et al, or per the new WP:ATT proposal. Exegesis must be derived from secondary sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original research by definition. Very well done, though, and would be great on a Smallville website... just not on an encyclopaedia.  --Nehwyn 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably Merge into the episode summaries, combined with Transwiki over to wikicities:c:Smallville. I have a hard time deciding where the OR line is here.  Everybody assumes that the "Clark Kent" in Smallville is the same one that's in Superman... but is that citable anywhere?  Ditto for any number of lesser references.  It seems appropriate to link Smallville characters to their corresponding DC characters, but absent an explicit cite from the writers, it's technically OR to assume that merely because the name is the same and the character is similar, it's the same character.  Reductio ad absurdum:  If you see a news article saying that Bill Gates bought the Dodgers, can you assume that the article is talking about Bill Gates?  After all, if they don't say "founder of Microsoft", they might be talking about some *other* Bill Gates.  Where's the line?  WP:ATT says "It is legitimate to make ... straightforward logical deductions ...".  That would seem to apply to at least some of the material here, and that material seems useful.  Perhaps that would reduce this page to the point where the material could be moved into the episode summaries. Jordan Brown 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/Transwiki if possible. This is interesting, but so far outside of our policies I don't see how this can be salvaged. For the most part this is not only OR (as in: one person sitting in front of the tv writing things down) but also POV (as in: one person interpreting what things mean). ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Verifiable by watching the episode. You can't say painting a big red "S" on his chest doesn't fit "straightforward logical deduction."  - Peregrinefisher 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about When Chloe talks to Lana about having sex, she reveals that she lost her virginity to an intern named Jimmy who was "cute, in a bowtie sort of way." This is a broad reference to Jimmy Olsen, who works as a photographer at the Daily Planet. Olsen has worn a bowtie in numerous occasions in comics and the movies? This is unsourced guesswork, pure and simple. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of them should be removed. A bunch of them were removed a couple of months ago.  It may be time for another house cleaning. - Peregrinefisher 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Keep, but might require a cleanup. I find some of these very useful since they actually make you think and remember of some things you probably wouldn't notice while watching. SFilip 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)