Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colt (Supernatural) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Colt (Supernatural)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural relisting. The previous AfD closed by me without consensus, but I think further discussion is needed. Please see previous AfD for arguments before and against deletion. 1 != 2 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment what are the guidelines for notability of a particular weapon in fiction? It seems unlikely that any threshold could be passed. I'd say probably trim and merge if not outright delete. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The artifact seems to be covered in plenty of detail  in the plot section of the Supernatural article (starting with season two).  If this article were merged into the main article of the series, it would still face the same problems with sources and lack of out-of-universe information.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the information contained needs to be condensed, and perhaps at that point it will be more appropriate to list this in the plot section or (as I suggested in the previous AfD) a page documenting notable artifacts from the series.  Although this particular artifact is pivotal and spans multiple episodes, its notability is probably not so high as to warrant a standalone page, and I would vote "merge" if the artifact page existed already.  I definitely do not agree that this page should be deleted outright. - Banazir (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to WP:NOT and sufficient coverage in Supernatural (TV series).  Mi re ma re  23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't think there is nearly enough detail in the plot section as it is now, it would be reasonable IMO to merge it in under "Dean's car" and migrate all of the content from the page. I still think that both the car and the gun belong in an artifact page, though - especially considering that there is an "artifact of the week" cf. the "monster of the week" (or the "alien race of the week" on Star Trek: The Next Generation or Doctor Who). - Banazir (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But how would such an article not itself fail WP:NOT#PLOT?  Mi re ma re  01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How does the section on Dean's Impala not fail it? Or do you think that section should be excised from the plot page itself? Now, without getting into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would like to point out that the contents of the page at issue are absolutely integral to the plot, spanning many important episodes, and IMO notable as a fictional reference to a highly notable real-world gun maker (Samuel Colt).  In fact, the story-external aspect is one reason I voted to keep the article.  - Banazir (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on Dean's Impala is part of a larger article, so is fine. Articles are not allowed to be all plot with no real-world context, which is what the Colt article is. I would also say that if the contents of the article are absolutely integral to the plot of the show, it should, by all common sense and logic, be in the plot section of the show's page, not shoved off into another article.  Mi re ma re  18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm fine with integrating it, but I don't follow your reasoning as to how Dean's car is more integral than the Colt (or even equally integral to it) with respect to the plot of Supernatural. Besides being a sort of deus ex machina for eliminating demons (even regulars), it ties Samuel Colt into the story continuity.  In any case, my position is that it is notable because of the attribution to a real life weapon-maker, but I personally would be willing to see it absorbed into the plot section.  - Banazir (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the car is more important to the plot than the colt, or vice-versa, just that the car doesn't fail WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a small part of a larger article, rather than a stand-alone article.  Mi re ma re  21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think merging is a reasonable compromise, though I still think that real-world historical references have notability beyond plot relevance (so that with an accumulation of "artifacts of the week", and artifacts page will be appropriate, independently of WP:NOT). IMO a lot of the information contained in the existing article is useful as a reference about the artifact (the aforementioned real-world ties, its iconic appearance, the legend imputed to its maker, etc.).  That is, it's not just about what story-internal impact it has had (e.g., what demons it's been used to kill).  - Banazir (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability, or what Wikipedia defines as notability, can only be established by coverage in reliable independent sources as per WP:N; historical references, or whatever else the show contains, can have no bearing on that.  Mi re ma re  18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they can. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Meaning, are there reliable secondary sources that write about the Colt and are not just giving plot synopses, but critical analyses of its role in popular mythology, fictional history or alternate history, etc.?  Examples:
 * Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on mythological references in current television series - Independent? Yes.  Salient to the topic?  Yes.  Not merely a plot reference?  Yes.  Reliable?  Yes, though YMMV.  (This being a fictional artifact that was first mentioned on a current television show last season, we're not going to find any secondary source that is itself encyclopedic, so if you are of the persuasion that TV Guide and popular media are inherently unreliable, I can't help you there.)  Significant?  This particular reference is quite minor, although there are many like it.  (All I can do personally is to look them up and cite them one by one, in what I consider to be descending order of significance, reliability, and salience.)
 * TV Guide interview of Supernatural creator Eric Kripke - Independent? Yes.  Salient?  Yes; one of the questions is specifically about the role of the Colt.  Not merely a plot reference?  Yes, but primarily about plot-related questions.  Significant?  Again, if you're looking for permanence as a criterion, almost any interview of a author, screenwriter, director, or producer is going to fail a notability test, but that's not so.  i.e., some fictional elements of a TV series are notable just for their (documented) impact on the viewership or fandom of the show, or for the directions in which they take the show.  I would furthermore maintain that notability not only does not expire; it is timeless.  Once something reaches popular awareness to the level of being independently documented, it has met the notability criterion for inclusion in a truly general-purpose encyclopedic reference.  Finally, popularity alone does not equal notability does not equal notability, but it can contribute to it.  IMO, a topic that makes it into multiple television reviews and interviews that are syndicated in dozens or hundreds of secondary media outlets has received significant coverage.
 * BuddyTV.com interview notes - In a similar vein, this correspondent reports on questions asked of Kripke at a convention. I'm not saying this is a comparably important source to the professional reviewers' articles (or even a reliable source), but the union of Kripke interviews provides some independent verification.  Take this article as one more example (though Kripke only alludes to the reason why the Winchesters' weapons rather than religious relics or divine intervention will be viable solutions).  The predictions made have already come to pass, so there is no WP:NOT issue here.
 * - Banazir (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources establish notability, and you have just demonstrated that there isn't such coverage - the Colt is mentioned once in each of the three sources you mention above, which justifies coverage in the main article, not in a separate one.  Mi re ma re  18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We must be operating under different definitions of "significance", because the first article makes very clear, direct reference to the Colt as a prima facie example of the "intricate mythology" of the series. Per the WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."  A few sentences or a paragraph in a review of several television shows (as opposed to a single episode of one) can be more than trivial if it the topic in question is presented as a primary, or sole, example, as it is in the Seattle P-I article.  Could you please specify what you consider sufficient evidence of significance?  More to the point, I just came up with several examples of reliable secondary sources that you implied did not exist, significant or not, so I would suggest we hold off on blanket declarations of existence or nonexistence until we are both clear on how you are using or interpreting the terms "trivial", "significant", and perhaps "reliable".  (And yes, I have read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Fiction, WP:CYF, etc.  Wikipedia guidelines are clear about the definitions of reliability and independence of sources, but they rightly leave open the definition of significance, which indeed has subjective and context-specific aspects.)  To this I would just add that what I've dug up are just two examples among several I have found, without a whole lot of looking, so many additional similar references exist, which just need to be cited.  - Banazir (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The way the article is titled will not be searched for. As such, there is no need to redirect. We could add it to uthe Colt disambig page with a link to Supernatural, though, after it is deleted as non-notable. I (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is deleted, I propose to subsume its contents into a subsection at the same level as "Dean's car". (Note: for the record, I did not make the page nor even contribute to it before now.)  - Banazir (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable fictional plot element. Ridernyc (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the simple fact that when I want info on something, someone, somewhere, somewhen, somehow... I come here because I know it to be the best place to find what I'm looking for. I personnaly don't care about the Colt, but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone else interested in finding info about it. Wheter it is merged or on it's own page, as long as it can be found so that WP keeps satisfying those who seek knowledge. I would also like to add that non-notable for someone could be notable for someone else. Notability, IMO, is territorial-dependant, interest-dependent and plain all subjective. I also believe it is a problem around here.Smumdax (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notability" in the case of Wikipedia articles refers to whether there are reliable secondary sources that have covered the subject in question, rather than whether people find the article useful or interesting. It is also absolutely against Wikipedia policy for an article to contain nothing other than a description of the subject's role in fiction. There has to be real-world context for an encyclopedia article, otherwise the subject should be covered in a parent article, in this case Supernatural (TV series).  Mi re ma re  18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - There is no legitimate reason to delete the article. There is precedent for articles on fictional objects within the well-known television series. Especially an object that has a detailed history such as "The Colt." -- Voldemore (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons are explained at WP:NOT, and the exchange above.  Mi re ma re  18:19, 21 December 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.