Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of Lost


 * 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 and redirect. If someone wants this information userfied so it can be worked on, feel free to contact me on my user talk page. --Core desat 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thematic motifs of Lost

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page has gotten out of hand. The page started with a few topics but has grown into an unsourced disaster. It is an essay. It is original research. It is not for Wikipedia. See Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of the Matrix series for a similar AFD. -- Wikipedical 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. --  Wikipedical 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lose it on a mysterious tropical island per nom. Dbromage 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR unless somebody wants to trim it down to the 8 lines that are sourced Corpx 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They're actually stuck in purgat . . . err . . delete. The eight lines that are sourced would not an independent article make. If they're not already covered in the main article, now would be a good time to move them. This is hORrible. Consequentially 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have removed the original research.  There is enough information left in the article for it to stand alone, IMO. JulesH 10:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  or develop a coherent definition of what his article should include that would be verifiable and not original research. I trimmed part of what JulesH left, and I am still not sure about the stub that is left.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Ursasapien has been involved in an edit war on this article previously, where an anon editor attempted to remove OR and he opposed the removal.    .  In light of this, and his unexplained apparent reversal of opinion concerning whether or not this information should be included, I'm not sure how much weight should be placed on this delete vote.  I also note that there is nothing at all wrong with most of the section he removed from the article which I had left in, and which I have now mostly restored. JulesH 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please assume good faith. My primary concern, now as always, is to have the best, "freest" encyclopedia on the planet.  Therefore, I see absolutely no "unexplained apparent reversal of opinion".  I freely admit that I have been involved in a content dispute on this article.  In my opinion, the reason behind this dispute is primarily the structure of the article itsself.  As it is titled "Thematic motifs of Lost" and the television show is relatively new, there is little secondary source material.  For example, Shakespeare's "Hamlet" or "The Great Gatsby" have been thoroughly analyzed by a number of critics who have written books and articles about this analysis.  Looking for the "thematic motifs" of Lost, almost of essence, requires original analysis of the primary source (the show itsself).  This leads to arguments over which recurring elements are symbolic themes and which recurring elements are just recurring elements.  There are too few secondary sources to sustain this article.  Leflyman has made a the suggestion that the title be changed to "Themes and motifs of Lost" but this seems to still lead to problems.  I do not think there are enough verfiable secondary sources to sustain this article either.  In conclusion, my position has not changed.  I am an inclusionist and I would love for this article to stay.  I just do not see how it can, if the requirement is that every thematic assertion has a verfiable secondary source.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect I would like to change my vote as per thedemonhog's proposal. Ursasapien (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  I am reluctant because of the work that has gone into this page, but that is not what this is about, and the article is well summarized in the main Lost article. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lost (TV series): I like how the article has been trimmed down so that everything points to secondary sources; however, the article is now so short that there is not enough information to merit a full article. I'm changing my vote because this will preserve the talk page – on which there has been much debate – and will also preserve the current page in history so that if someone wants to seriously restart the page, they will have a good start.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 06:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've washed my hands of this one --Qwerty7412369 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per thedemonhog. • 97198  talk  07:51, 8 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.