Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons
This is simply not a valuable list. It was originally used in Angels and Demons itself, where it served only to prejudice people against the book. After I removed it from that page, Hektor made it its own page. However, the content is unjustifiable there too. Encyclopedias are not meant to have every detail possible, but rather only address the most important issues. A list of factual inaccuracies in Angels and Demons is open-ended, POV, and clearly inconsistent with other fiction articles. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Superm401 | Talk 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I cannot vote since I am the creator of the article, although I didn't write its contents, but only tried to preserve its contents for discussion. Please see Talk:Angels and Demons for an explanation of the genesis of this article.Hektor 04:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't even let me finish nominating it. Superm401 | Talk 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not familiar with the procedure.Hektor 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's all right. Superm401 | Talk 04:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no reason that authors cannot vote in this date especially if they are registered users. Our guidelines for Articles for Deletion say "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." Capitalistroadster 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case Keep or Merge with article Angels and demons. This is valuable content and research worth keeping on many interesting topics. And - by the way - I was looking for this kind of information (after having read the book) when I first tried to access the article Angels and demons of Wikipedia.Hektor 04:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is pointless, for one very important reason: Angels and Demons is a work of fiction. Therefore, historical inaccuracies should be expected and are not notable enough for an article. Cynicism addict 05:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that inaccuracies are important when they are so blatant that they prevent the suspension of disbelief necessary for the enjoyment of a work of fiction.Hektor 05:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All fiction has historical and other inaccuracy. The type that has the most is known as fantasy.  Many people find it easiest to suspend disbelief when reading this genre, so your point is doubtful.  Furthermore, we would need a source to show that it prevents the enjoyment of the work.  Right now, it seems that's your opinion, making it unacceptable. original research. Superm401 | Talk 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "we would need a source to show that it prevents the enjoyment of the word" -- WTF? WTF does enjoyment of the work have to do with this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete sillyness. Any major glaring mistakes might be usefully merged with the Angels and demons article, but these are incredibly petty for a work of fiction.  Bikeable 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . A database of all factual inaccuracies in all works of fiction might be an interesting project, but it's a different project than this one. --William Pietri 08:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiBooks. Based on UncleG's comments below, I'm changing my vote. --William Pietri 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete agreeing with above. If a particular inaccuracy is relevant to the book, list it in the work's main entry. Dottore So 11:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list does not belong on Wikipedia, it is just a collection of niggling points that are irrelevant, bearing in mind the book is indeed a novel and thus assumed to be a work of fiction, with non-facts and inaccuracies. Mushin 15:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not Wikipedia material (WP:NOT). Per nom. --Robby 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge back into the main article, removing the more niggling points. Given that it's commonly assumed that Dan Brown's books are technically accurate (last time I glanced at a rack of them in my bookshop, there was a sign saying "based on real historical facts!"), it is certainly not POV to point out a few examples of glaring mistakes in them. Sorry, but it absolutely is encyclopedic.  Far more so than all the pokecruft that there's a clear consensus to keep. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're the ones noting the inaccuracies, it sounds like original research to me. Since other people already maintain lists like this I think we're better off linking external resources from the main Angels and Demons article. --William Pietri 19:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. If anyone believes those "based on real historical facts" signs by the kiosk for his books, pop me an email... I've got a special deal on super valuable, invisible, intangible diamonds I'm looking ot unload. Kidding aside though, as pointed out above this is a work of fiction.  There is no logical reason to post lists of the factual inaccuracies about every book/movie.  Otherwise we end up with 100 lists about how there would never be enough gravity on that asteroid they land on in Empire Strikes Back for them to walk around, etc...  If anyone is so inclined to add a couple of the more glaringly silly things from the book to the main article I certainly am not going to revert, but all things considered, hopefully the average reader understands that "fiction" means "made up".--Isotope23 20:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge back to main article. It is not relevant except in context of the book but in that context it is very relevant and I can't imagine how we could justify not including it.  Certainly not with the reasoning that all our readers should know it's baloney and take it with a grain of salt; there is a world of difference between trusting people to understand that there are no real-life Wookiees and trusting people to spot that Dan Brown translated Novus Ordo Seclorum incorrectly to lend false support to certain conspiracy theories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with pointing out that there are a number of factual errors. It is even appropriate to delineate some of the more serious ones, like that mistranslation.  However, the list is clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  That is why UncleG has moved it to Wikibooks(see below). Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "not appropriate as its own encyclopedia article" or "not appropriate for as an encyclopedia article"? If it's the latter, I'm afraid you'll have to explain why you believe this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Antaeus Feldspar and Haeleth - I'd suggest trimming it to the most pertinent and least nitpicky examples, though, to prevent it overwhelming the other article. So, a paragraph on main errors (groups such as 'physics', 'history', 'geography', etc.) rather than a list? Z iggurat  22:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh my, Isotope23, are you sure there isn't enough gravity on that asteroid they land on in Empire Strikes Back for them to walk around? We should have an article, called Gravity errors in Star Wars movies, for sure... oh yeah. KillerChihuahua 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll get right on writing that. ;) --Isotope23 03:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as extremely useful - yes, I expect this kind of thing from Wikipedia too. --Malyctenar 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest the mechanism that we have commonly employed before to satisfy both those who want sourced encyclopaedia articles and those who want detailed textual and plot analysis: an encyclopaedia article about the book on Wikipedia, an annotated text wikibook on Wikibooks, and shiny interwiki links joining them both together. I've set up the Angels and Demons wikibook for you. Uncle G 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I think that this idea solves the issue, while allowing to preserve the information currently in this article. Once again, I didn't create this article for it to stay, but to make sure that the preservation of its contents is at least discussed and possibly ensured.Hektor 01:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care much as long as it's off Wikipedia. But to be frank, isn't this the kind of thing they complain about us dumping over there?  It doesn't seem like it would fit well into a larger book, or that it could become one of its own ...Superm401 | Talk 01:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See Fiction, Wikibooks:Annotated texts, and Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks. Uncle G 04:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You may be right that this is appropriate on Wikibooks. However, it is not an annotated text.  It couldn't be, because according to Wikibooks, annotated texts must contain the text and Angels and Demons is still very much in copyright. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete a list of factual inaccuracies in a work of fiction? Come on.  Grue   17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There has to be a limit to "lists of" stuff, and I think this is kinda over the line. If the innacuracies are relevant enough, they should be mentioned in the article for the book itself. Otherwise, I don't think we need this as an article. --DanielCD 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; unencyclopedic list of trivia about a fictional work that belongs on a fan site, not on Wikipedia. MCB 22:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article is currently available at Angels and Demons/Divergence from reality. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2005 (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.