Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of passwords used in fiction


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of passwords used in fiction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The listed items, indiscriminately drawn from multiple forms of fiction, have nothing in common in terms of genre, theme or style beyond the happenstance of using a password for something at some time for some purpose. A similar list, of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password, was deleted a few months ago and this list is broader and more indiscriminate than that one was. Otto4711 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Bleh.  I can't believe this list lasted for a year.  María ( críticame ) 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is one of the best examples of an indiscriminate collection seen in ages. -- Charlene 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep After I read it, I can see that it has a place. It's just as valid as a list of current slang terms, and a bit of an etymology for words that are widely known among certain groups.  "Caput draconis" apparently is a reference that Harry Potter fans all understand right away, but not the rest of us.  "Swordfish" is apparently an inside joke that is understood by a legion of password fans.  The only time I was a Password fan was when Allen Ludden (GRHS) was still around, but they apparently exist.  Mandsford 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment List of slang terms and List of current slang terms do not exist, and if they did, they would likely be deleted as being indiscriminate. Whether any other article exists has no bearing on whether this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable, indiscriminate list of passwords that are the same as the combination on my luggage. - Tiswas (t) 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per WP:LC.--Edtropolis 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This list is tightly focused on one thing: passwords in fiction. It's the very opposite of "indiscriminate " or "loosely-associated." Passwords are central to modern computer security. Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic. Password use in fiction is both indicative of social attitudes and helps form those attitudes. I can easily see a security researcher finding this article helpful. Please explain why this article has less merit than  List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", which has survived AfD 6 times, I believe.--agr 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have made a lot of blanket statements, but do you have proof to support them? What are your reasons, based on Wikipedia policy, to keep this list?  As it stands now, the list is a repository of loosely associated topics and therefore violates WP:NOT.  I could see having a list of passwords in fiction that play an important role in theme or plot, and therefore lends to the importance/notability  of the work itself, but listing things like "one of several passwords spoken to the Fat Lady portrait to access the Gryffindor dormitories" is very much indiscriminate and overwhelmingly unimportant.  Also, please remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María ( críticame ) 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which statements would you like me to prove? That passwords are central to modern computer security? That should be obvious, but I'd be happy to dig up a reference or two. That Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic? See Category:Authentication methods. That the way something is treated in fiction is indicative and formative of societal attitudes? Opinion, to be sure, but one I think is widely held. As for Harry Potter, I invite you to peruse the Category:Harry Potter and its 12 subcategories. In particular, take a look at Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter. The later, of course, covering those spells in HP movies and games that are not in the books. If there are too many Harry Potter passwords for this list, they can be broken out into a separate article Passwords in Harry Potter which would fit right into the in-depth Wikipedia coverage of Hogwarts culture. Tell me again why you think passwords in fiction is less worthy of coverage than all the Potter material???--agr 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why lists about spells are found to be notable are because spells are widely accepted to be crucial to the Harry Potter universe. I can promise you that passwords are not, as they are not notable in a variety of other examples of fictional works.  I agree with Otto4711 below that "Fiction" is too wide a reach, and it allows many trivial instances of password usage in any form of fiction to be listed.  I ask again, are you able to provide, with Wikipedia guideline and policy, why this list should be kept? María ( críticame ) 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out that passwords and public attitudes toward them are an important area of academic research. See the refs section of password for several papers on the topic. I'm not aware of any serious academic work on spells. Yet you argue that spells in one fictional work are notable. So passwords in fiction are at least as notable. Since verifiability is not an issue here and there is no more original research in this article than most other lists on Wikipedia, QED.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Magic (Harry Potter) exists. Passwords (Harry Potter) does not, but you're getting off topic.  The fact that passwords are an area of academic research is irrelevant, since we're discussing this article in particular which deals with passwords in fiction.  My point is that this list and its examples are trivial.  You have still yet to provide Wikipedia guideline and/or policy that backs your claims, so I'm guessing you cannot.  María ( críticame ) 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As i pointed out several times, password use in fiction is reflective of societal attitudes and therefore of interest. You asked for proof and I tried to provide same. "Proof" assumes some set of standards, consistently applied. Otherwise we just have a popularity contest. Harry Potter and scatological words in film have strong constituencies and are therefore safe. A serious topic like password use doesn't and can be hooted off Wikipedia.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're implying some sort of bias against your topic of choice, which is not the case. This article violates several instances of WP:NOT, as stated in the nomination, and has a lack of encyclopedic value.  That's what it comes down to, not comparisons to Harry Potter, which is frankly getting old.  Passwords =/ HP; I merely used the example on the List of passwords used in fiction article, and now I'm regretting it... ;) María ( críticame ) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting bias, just arbitrariness. If you disagree, please explain why Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter and List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" have encyclopedic value while this list does not.--agr 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María ( críticame ) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument -- Kickstart70 - T - C 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the nominator of one of the "fuck" AFDs, I would agree with you whole-heartedly that this list has exactly as much encyclopedic value as that one, specifically, none. Regardless, as noted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not compelling keep arguments. And naturally I would strongly dispute the notion that this list is tightly focused. "Fiction" is an enormously wide focus and this list currently draws together instances from four different forms of fiction with the potential for who knows how many more, which are widely disparate in topic, style and genre, united only by use of a password by someone to do something. Otto4711 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Yes, the list is well-defined.  No, its content is not significant.  I could also make a reasonable argument for original research because nobody else has compiled such a list AFAIK. Yechiel Man  18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT as well. However I do recall a similar list that survived AFD a couple years ago that listed fiction with things hidden in boxes. Apparently there's some sub-genre of academic literary study that actually gets off on that, so maybe someone can make a good case from an academic basis to keep this list. Otherwise I see WP:SNOWBALL happening. If there are WP-notable works that have significant use of passwords, create a separate article discussing them. If a password itself somehow becomes independently notable, then it can have its own article and if there's enough of them, a category. 23skidoo 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The format of the page may violate WP:NOT, but the topic does not necessarily do so. Unless List of sex positions, List of rail accidents, and more similar pages also qualify under this. WP:NOT, as I understand it, refers to avoiding having pages for every non-notable person, place, and thing under the sun. Lists have always, and will always be considered differently. Disclaimer, I started the page...I hope that that in itself does not factor into the argument. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your examples are lists of notable events / article worthy subject - each elements in each list have their own articles. Lists must be discriminate to that degree. -  Tiswas (t) 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Each work cited in List of passwords used in fiction does have its own article.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Each work cited has its own article, each password does not. The is a fundamental difference in that the works are not the subject of the list - The analogue would be an article entitled List of fictional works with passwords - Such an article would in itself be unmaintainable listcruft, and no doubt deleted. - Tiswas (t) 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's not true for either of the articles I presented. Neither one is comprised of list items each with their own article. In the password article, each entry should cite the page for the work of fiction. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm unable to comment on the List of sex positions article, due to somewhat restrictive internet filtering - The List of rail accidents, however, does link to articles on the individual list items in many cases. The existence of those articles, however, is moot. If the article in question were worthy of inclusion, each constituent, i.e. password in fiction, would have its own article. Such as 12345 in the film Spaceballs. A subtle, but distinct, difference - Tiswas (t) 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Spells listed in Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter generally do not have their own article.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And? Your point is? The two list articles that you cite are in-universe style forks, as recommended by WP:FICT#2, minor treatments. This article would at no point have been part of a parent article, and is merely a loosely associated collection of trivial plot devices. - Tiswas (t) 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a style fork. Of course. How could I be so stupid? I think we need a List of spells in Wikipedia. --agr 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Indiscriminate junk, what encyclopedic purpose could this possibly hold? This is nothing but trivia. Until(1 == 2) 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--JayJasper 20:44, 19 June 2007 (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.