Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of technological advancements in Back to the Future Part II


 * 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

List of technological advancements in Back to the Future Part II

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The topic does not appear to be notable and the whole article is a bunch of WP:OR ("But the 1989 film didn't predict..."). It really doesn't hold up to WP:FICT at all (ie, it cannot sustain an encyclopedic treatment since there are no published sources dealing with this fragment of the movie). Axem Titanium 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research; if any of those links are to reliable sources specifically discussing the portrayal of the future in Back to the Future Part II, then merge that content into Back to the Future Part II. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Deckiller 13:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One reaches this via Wikipedia's Back to the Future category, and the fact that there's a category shows the high regard in which "BTTF" is held here. I can sympathize with the nom's concerns about OR, but television and film articles are held to a lower standard on Wikipedia.  I'm afraid that if you nominated every TV or movie article that is heavy on original research, you would develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and nobody wants you to have carpal... Yes, this could be merged back into the article about the film, and I think that's where it started.   However, this one has a long history and a lot of contributions and edits (yes, even I), and fits with the other articles in the category.  I commend thee, nominator, thou art like St. George, but some dragons are easier to slay than others.  Mandsford 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no notability of the topic. Why don't we have articles on technological advancements in the bazillion other fictional works set in the future? Because there is no outside commentary on the subject so it can't sustain an article. I find your statement "television and film articles are held to a lower standard on Wikipedia" worrying. I know many editors would disagree, especially those who frequent WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is worrying, because it's true, but I stopped worrying about it. I just like to remind people about the double standard when they start quoting their favorite Wikipedia chapter and verse.  Maybe those disagreeing editors you know are just kidding themselves about the importance of knowing a lot about a TV show.  Sure, it's a double standard.  Always has been.  The examples I like to cite ad nauseam are Scooby Doo or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the hundreds of articles about these and other defining moments in civilization.  Where do you think descriptions of every single frickin' episode of a a TV show come from?  The Journal of Scooby-doology?  Nah, it's from one of many websites that I could look at if Wikipedia disappeared tomorrow.  Yes, I'm sure that someone has written "a REAL book" about some of these things too, the kind with lots of pictures.  As I say, there's a lower standard for things on TV, and that's just the way it is.  Mandsford 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the way it is, but it shouldn't be this way. Ergo, this AFD. Axem Titanium 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! We'll solve the problems in the Middle East in the next discussion.  Mandsford 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It's original research, unless multiple reliable sources have discussed this topic. And sets a bad precedent for hundreds of other List of technological advancements in science fiction work X, where X = film/book/TV series/comic/etc of an editor's choice. Masaruemoto 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is all fan fiction and original research.  Fan sees movies and documents everything that might be a "technological advancement".   There is no notability established for this list Corpx 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR and non-notable subject. What's with the But the 1989 film didn't predict... section as well?! Why are headings like that being used in an encyclopedia, but worst of all, how can people note anachronisms in a work of fiction STILL set in the future? To quote some stupidity from the article, the film didn't predict Widespread use of cellphones. The film is set in 2015, maybe cellphones get banned in 2012? Maybe a new kind of communication device is invented in the next eight years? Who knows? Who cares? It's the future. This reminds me of the "mistake" in Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence: A.I., where the twin towers can be seen standing 2000 years in the future. The twin towers could have been re-built at some point in the next 2000 years, so it isn't a mistake. Crazysuit 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is original research about a topic that doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability. Also, articles on works of fiction are not held to a lower standard on Wikipedia, people just haven't been following the standards set in policy and guideline and assume that means a new standard has been set. Repeatedly disregarding policy and guideline does not create a new standard. Jay32183 19:30, 20 August 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.