Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
A Nobody (talk | contribs)
53,000 edits
added
There has been no canvassing, and no justification has been provided on talk
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Human disguise]]===
===[[Human disguise]]===
{{not a ballot}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}


Revision as of 17:38, 1 November 2009

Human disguise

Human disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural relisting of a CSD G4 deletion that was overturned as a result of a discussion at deletion review. A variant of the article (Human suit) was originally deleted per this discussion at AfD. Although the history of the deletion is complex, and a history merge has been performed, these facts are not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The article has been improved since the original deletion. The original reason for deletion: "[that it is a minor] plot device with no apparent real-world notability", could still be argued, however. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Salt and then drop into the black hole at the galactic core Seriously, this page was disingenuously created to circumvent the then-active AfD on Human suit and is not even a content fork, it's a content mirror. I thought this was done with but a DrV was launched after the speedy and then closed without me ever so much as being notified! Please just delete this mess! Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page existed before hand, they just copying information over. A human disguise is better, since some of the examples mentioned aren't actually a human suit. Totally different AFD here. Dream Focus 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original one was deleted because of religious people upset by part of what was original there, and all swarming in to say delete, before the article had time to develop into what it became at the time of its unfortunately deletion. But, whatever. There are plenty of notable series that have a character who disguises themselves as a human, so its a notable enough subject matter. And I did find books mentioning it in the last AFD. Dream Focus 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Delete and salt as per the very recent AfD of the exact same article. I have nominated this for a speedy. By the way, dream focus is both wrong and offensive in his summary of the previous AfD. Having been involved at both articles I'm very annoyed that I wasn't notified about the unrepresentative DrV. This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept. This is exactly the same AfD, changing one word doesn't change the lack of RS, notability, etc. This disruptive behaviour is going too far. Everyone at the previous, same AfD should be notified and it should be linked in a box at the top as normal. Verbal chat 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was one of the main proponents of deletion and I am an Atheist. Verbal is likewise not known for a strong religious PoV (I am unaware of Verbal's personal religious convictions). Accusations that AfD was flooded by "religious" people thus demonstrably false. The original issue was the fact that the article was WP:FANCRUFT with no indicators of WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Disguise if there is any valuable information in this article to merge. Otherwise delete. Snottywong (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable. This new article is ripe for expansion. The use of human disguise by greek gods, satan, in science fiction, and biblical stories is very well established. There are plenty of sources on google books and google news discussing the significance of the meme. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're in the article and I'm trying to add more, but it's time consuming to revert your vandalism and disruption. Please stop or you will have to be blocked for the duration of the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not provided any RS that "human disguise" or "suit" is a notable concept, what you've given is WP:OR and primary sources that the term is used in books, etc - but not that it is notable. Verbal chat 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is being vandalised by Verbal including this edit removing sourced content [1]. He's welcome to make his case for deletion, but if he can't restrain himself from vandalising the article admin intervention may become necessary. Please restore the article content that he removed (after adding a speedy tag and then a bunch of other tags when that was removed by another editor). This is getting ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per above.  Btilm  22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content fork (that it's an end around on AFD is annoying, but what are you going to do?), basically original research. It isn't an encyclopedic topic; it's a coat-rack for trivia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim- there's enough for at least the material to remain. Perhaps not as a standalone article, but at least in some form. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found any critical coverage of this as a separate topic in any reliable sources. (The search was well worth doing, though, because it did throw up sources for similar topics: why don't we have articles on Gender disguise, or indeed Fictional device? Editors interested writing articles on fantasy, science fiction, or literary themes might wish to explore that further.)

    On the other hand, I agree that "Human disguise" is a recognisable literary theme and there may be room to discuss it as a subsection of a larger article, such as Fantasy tropes and conventions. Would a merge be a reasonable compromise?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gender disguise? A merge is worth considering, but keep in mind this is a new article and likely to be expanded. I think it's appropriately broad as it is, yet still coherent, but I'm pretty flexible if there's a better way to handle the subject. The fantasy article you mention focuses on aspects in fantasy writing, while this one deals more with sci-fi, cartoon animation, and religio-mythological concepts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the thing in older literature such as Shakespeare where the girl dresses up as a boy to go and seek her fortune, or in Woolf where a character swaps gender during the story.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Since this has turned from being a normal AfD into one of our regularly-scheduled battlefields between the Article Rescue Squadron and the Article Extermination Squadron, and there is now no hope whatsoever of a good-faith debate about sources, I have stricken my remark and wish to bow out of the whole matter. Regardless of how this is closed, I look forward to seeing it at DRV shortly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite simply not true. Science fiction writer and critic Stanisław Lem often depicted aliens as incomprehensible and was critical of other writers who simply depicted aliens as humans in disguise. Gary Westfahl, a prolific science fiction writer and critic who does not yet have an article, discusses it a bit in an article here [2]. This is a very well established trope. This is a very new article, so it's not surprising that it's taking time to developa dn is starting out by picking the low hanging fruit: noting from reliable sources where this plot device and theme has been used. A reasonable discussion of the name and how best to handle the content is fine. But frankly, the rush to an AfD hasn't provided much time to properly develop the article. The idea that no one has ever discussed this type of plot device is silly and some of the cites in the aritcle already show that it has been discussed in relation to cold-war themes, feminism, science fiction writing, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's correct and added to an already existing discussion of this article, at an appropriate noticeboard. You've already taken this to ANI and been smacked down for it, so stop peddeling this disruptive line please. Verbal chat 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They walk amongst us! Messy article, but it seems to cover a theme that recurs sufficiently to justify an article and could be whipped into shape (I'm adding Rescue accordingly). Artw (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Besides picking up the human suit article, the rest of this is just a list of every random thing that ever appeared in any context in the guise of a human being. I see no possibility of anything non-trivial or unobvious being said. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a recurring theme in multiple notable works of fiction and the like. I do like Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) suggestion of turning it into a list, but not outright deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is original research it is. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google News search reveals 17 pages of articles that use the exact term "human disguise". I have not gone through all of them, but there is at least two New York Time articles, one mentioning the device in science fiction, and another in fable/legend. Seems like reliable sourcing is out there, unlike for the more alien term "human suit". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The section "In religion and mythology" (which does not seem unrepresentative) is an irrelevant and fanciful bit of artificial knowledge that could not exist anywhere by any means other than desperate Googling to sustain a Wikipedia entry's notability. It is thus WP:SYN at best, and the rest of the article has been put together by the same method. Even a couple of academic lit crit articles on the motif would not make it a notable subject (they would just provide a couple of footnotable sentences for an article on a notable subject like Literary representations of the human form or some such). Wareh (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is well sourced now and it's a notable topic with plenty of room for expansion. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an article, but a list, and one that interprets "human disguise" so broadly that this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Besides which it's simply misleading--an article that claims that the Greek gods in the Iliad are doing something similar to the aliens of Men in Black is peddling nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one or two sentences from the first paragraph may be reasonable to merge into the disguise article. The rest of this is a list of trivia, and the article serves no purpose other than collecting more trivia entries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to me like a prosified list of examples... an encyclopedia article should explain a topic, discuss it meaningfully, summarize published opinions on the topic... I don't really like the idea of an article that can do nothing but list 50 examples of the topic, and not talk about what it actually means. That's just trivia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not a real unifying article, just a grab bag of examples. Not a notable enough idea to warrant an article of its own. Auntie E. 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt this quite obvious end-run around WP:CSD#G4, and we need to start thinking about sanctions for stuff like this. Black Kite 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: still no indication that a coherent topic exists without editor WP:SYNTH to create it. Article consists entirely of stringing together WP:PRIMARY sources with the occasional secondary source clearly using the word pair in their ordinary English meaning not as a term of art (e.g. "invisible or in some human disguise"[3]). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and sources - Some sources which actually talk about it as a subject, and thus do not require OR and synthesis to make a subject from: "Alien invaders in the movies tend to fall into two types. There are monsters from outer space ("The War of the Worlds," the forthcoming "Independence Day") and infiltrators ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers") who slip in using human disguise"[4] and "The Pagan deities often assumed a human disguise; and, when angels appeared to the Jews, it was always as men"[5] In these sources, instead of simple having examples and making up the subject, the subject itself is discussed. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on lack of sources: bare use of the word combination "human disguise" in a very few sources does not amount to "significant coverage" (it is "trivial" coverage as that word is defined in WP:NOTE). Where are the sources that discuss (in something even resembling depth) the significance, history, etc, etc of 'human disguises' in literature? It appears that there aren't any -- therefore there should not be an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that, without sources really exploring this concept as a literary theme, it's just a pile of trivia in disguise. The current "in criticism" paragraph is completely off-topic; the quote is not about aliens literally disguised as humans, it's about fictional aliens that act too human because of a failure of imagination on the author's part, a very different thing. Everything else should get cut from the article as being primary-sourced trivia, but then there'd be nothing left. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As a broad theme in literature, film, and television, I'd think it's clearly notable. Gods, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, and robots (Disneyland animatronics), and even other human beings (e.g. Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or the Mission Impossible crew) have worn human disguises. It's an unsettling topic that asks uncomfortable questions about how we know whether someone's really a human being, even what it means to be a human being. Whether the article's going to be done well or not is a separate matter, but surely it should exist. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt pure original research, unnotable topic, and trivia, and already deleted once. This recreate and rename should not fly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sizzle Flambé. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised keep. I wasn't expecting to want to keep this article, but looking at it in its current state, it already makes a reasonable claim that this is a notable concept. There are plenty of instances in fiction and mythology of gods, supernatural creatures and aliens that masquerade as human; arguably enough to say that it is a trope worthy of having an article about. There are issues with original research here, but it should be possible to find third-party sources that discuss this concept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, like Robofish above, was surprised at my thoughts here, although obviously for different reasons. This is an extremely popular meme, as the article notes, and is all over the place. However, that is all the article notes, and therein lies the issue. Every (or nearly every) source only proves that this exists and is used, but I didn't see a single source that was actually covering the topic of human disguises. Notability requirements are for coverage in third-party sources, not mentions. I have not seen nor can see a source that is itself about human disguises/suits, and that leads me here to delete. Being a popular concept in media is grounds for inclusion in TVTropes, not here. Barring evidence of coverage and discussion of the actual subject, this article is essentially one giant "In popular culture" section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, per Snottywong's suggestion: I don't have a strong opinion on the subject matter, but as an article, it's fine. Snottywong might be onto something though that it would be more appropriate if merged with "Disguise".--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We could call this an "article disguise." It's a fairly random list disguised as an article. But the disguise is thin indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I liked the "Human suit" title. I consider the work that has gone into this article since it was first deleted under the other name, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in reliable sources and many books (Who didn't actually look?). The article will benefit from continued expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, whether Juman suit, Human disguise, etc., is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. What can be improved through normal editing does not belong at AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: yes I "looked" (I even quoted one in my 'delete' opinion). The "work" that "has gone into this article" was part of the basis for my opinion. The reliable irrelevant sources and 'much fluff' does not support notability (search results are no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- that requires citing specific sources whose reliability and depth of coverage can be assessed). Mere "use" does not equate to "significant coverage". I recognise the article's "delightful potential", which I why I would like to see it removed as expeditiously as possible. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice that you looked. Other editors have looked and formed opinions quite the opposite of yours. That the original nominator of the previous article finds his concerns addressed speaks volumes [6]. The beauty of community is that we do not all have to agree. I do not expect you to agree with me... and I will respectfully disagree with you. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability of this concept has not been established. Some of the examples listed are clearly notable but there is no indication that reliable sources have discussed these examples in terms of the more general concept. Our inclusion of them is a breach of WP:NOR. The manner in which this page was created, and the technicality through which DRV overturned the speedy deletion is a more general problem that must be fixed. This was a clear end run around an ongoing AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content. Certainly, it could use more work, but as discussed at the DRV its creation was not technically a violation. This article is much larger and better sourced now than the human suit article I nominated for AfD was at that time. It touches on what makes humans different from other animals and ways that distinction has been imitated and treated in various ways in fiction, religion, myth, philosophy, and movies based on them. I would suggest mention of The Stepford Wives, which uses a human disguise as a major plot device. Merging to disguise or human and conversion to a list are both ideas with merit, but I think it's somewhat beyond a list at this point.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge of the few bits that would fit into disguise. We actually had consensus for that and the process had started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? If it the article is kept, don't "merge" a small token bit over to another article, and then delete the rest. We could perhaps make an article called List of non-humans that have impersonated humans, or something of that sort, for the bulk of information, and just have a short description of a human disguise here. Dream Focus 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source for such a list would have to be something other than the current article, in order to avoid very idiosyncratic (WP:OR) or incorrect content. To source the inclusion of the individual items on such a list would mean finding reputable secondary sources that clearly put each item within the context of a recognized category. Even if such a category has a meager existence, the present article goes well-beyond any recognized topic of WP:RS discussion and simply does not correspond to its contents, but rather includes items willy-nilly based on personal criteria or Google gleanings (WP:OR). Wareh (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and dont merge. Stunning rescue work by Child of Midnight and Dream Focus. This is shaping up to be a most excellent article. As an amateur classist Ive read the Iliad several times, along with some of the best regarded commentary by Bespaloff and Weil. But Id never worked out how someone like Diomedes was able to wound several gods – hes not even as good a fighter as Achilles. It makes so much more sense now I know he was just damaging their human suits! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt - blatant effort to circumvent the normal deletion review process. This is the same old article, just as unencyclopedic as ever, if not worse; and this kind of attempted end run is violative of process as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to make a good argument that this article was created in circumvention of the normal deletion review process since it was recreated following a deletion review. Perhaps you've been misled by Verbal's canvassing and distortions? Is there a different deletion review process you wanted it to go through? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this whole situation when it was at DRV, and it honestly seemed like the closest thing to a bad faith action was the G4 speedy deletion that prompted the DRV. I want this article deleted, but at least its proponents seem to be operating within the rules. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't see a problem with a cut-and-paste move (not allowed) while an AfD, which is clearly heading for delete, is in progress? The starting a DrV on that illegitimate copy rather than a request to restore and rename the original article? And the DrV didn't even get input from those involved on either article? I see several problems with that. Verbal chat 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted based on the AFD which hadn't even been closed yet, that was never disputed in the DRV. DRV isn't required to get input from any particular group beyond the people who happen to show up for the DRV. Perhaps I shouldn't have cleared CoM of any questionable actions, but the deletion of the article he started was very problematic, especially as the person who made the deletion apparently never explained it. There was a lot of confusion. I'll assume good faith and say it was confusion all around. If there's more "confusion" and it leads to a third AFD in the near future, I'll start to think maybe there's some circumvention going on... but I don't see the need for jumping to any conclusions just yet. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very well researched article. I am very concerned by the many "usual" bad faith comments in this AFD also, "which [should be] ignored" by the closing admin. Ikip (talk)
    • Do you have RS that establish notability of the concept (significant coverage of the concept in third party sources?), and do you have any rebuttals to the delete arguments, and do you have any policy reasons for keep? This is not a vote - as you often tell others. "Well researched" is blatantly unsupportable. Verbal chat 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE That the article has got worse since the AfD started, with many unsupported sections and sections that are not supported by RS, such as blogs or primary sources. Editors are resistive to any change or discussion, and are arguing that their OR trumps wikipedia policy. Verbal chat 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I DISAGREE and suggets that editors take a look at the articles history to see for themselves rather than taking Verbals word for this. Also the all-caps is very silly. Artw (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a collection of film and book trivia with little to no encyclopedic value at all - mostly seems to be made up by the editors. As has been said above, the notability of this concept has not been establsihed at all. --Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excellent article; insufficient reason to delete. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

I just want to remind everyone that AfD is not the place to discuss whether an article is good or bad - those are (personal) opinions and should not impact an article's status. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I thought that this subject might be covered in the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy but can find nothing there. I have asked User:DeafMan aks David Langford whether the new edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction will cover it.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i had suggested content be changed to a list format, and retitled. while someone could someday make a nice simple list of fictional nonhuman characters or mythological nonhuman characters disguised as humans, this article is so overwhelmingly original research as to be impossible to fix. to keep this article, we would need multiple, secondary sources commenting on primary sources that discuss in depth the idea of "human disguise" across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here. its been said before: this is not a place to publish your ideas, no matter how interesting (and this could very well be the core of an excellent essay or book). I even think my attempts at fleshing out Aliteracy could be considered OR (and would not be offended if it was afd'd, though i would be sad of course), as i progress in my understanding of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, especially "across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here." Without that, the topic this article's on is an WP:OR invention of the article's author. Wareh (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you've set up a catch-22. When it's a mere list, it's objected to on the basis that it's just a list; when it discusses some of the examples, and gives sources, the objection is that it synthesizes the material into a discussion. And now you object because it isn't a complete discussion--a standard few Wikipedia articles can meet What the actual article is is essentially a list in paragraph format, with supporting references.I am really a little puzzled by all this, since i think it's a fairly good article--certainly a fairly good one as a basis of further improvment, which is all that is asked for. This is not a FA discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've re-added the Not a ballot hat, as removed by Verbal. There is sufficient psuedo-canvasing (or posisbly actual canvasing), disruptive editing, groundlerss accusations of policy breaches, non-policy reasons given for deletion, weord all-caps outbursts etc here and on related pages that I would assume the reason for it's presence is pretty self explanatory. Artw (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article covers a recurring literary theme/device that is notable and well-sourced. The active canvasing by Verbal (as linked by Artw above) and the disruptive editing by the same user, deleting valid sourced references added by ChildofMidnight, are especially disturbing. Such actions create the appearance that AfD is viewed as a competition or that there is some personal grudge-match going on. This is not how an AfD discussion should be handled. I suggest that the closing admin disregard votes cast by individuals canvased by Verbal. Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Delete and salt - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says WP isn't the place for "plot-only description of fictional works." Similarly, I don't think that it's the place for an indiscriminate list, derived from otherwise-unrelated fiction & non-fiction works, just because all contain a common reference to a gimmick (minor in most, major in some). If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... since this is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, your arguments puzzle me. I am confused by your declaring this article as an indiscriminate list,when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources, I am further puzzled by your summation that we might wait for a future when all sources must deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That is not what WP:N states. That is not what WP:V mandates. That is not what WP:RS guides. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it is substantively a "plot-only description of a fictional work" (sprinkled with a few bare-mentions in secondary sources), the argument would appear cogent. The "future" in question is one where "significant coverage" (not bare mention) is found in third-party sources. For the coverage to be "significant" it will, of necessity, have to include some in depth discussion of the device/motif of a 'human disguise' for a non-human. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to your opinion, the argument is not cogent, which is why I posed my puzzlement to User:DoriSmith... but not to you User:Hrafn. Your opinions have repeatedly been made quite clear. User:DoriSmith above declared this as a plot-only description of a fictional work, and yet did not state the fictional work of which it was felt to be a plot-only description. IUser:DoriSmith above declared the article as an indiscriminate list, when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. User:DoriSmith suggested we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That suggestion is contrary to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:WIP. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources... sources which deal with the subjects of the article in a more-than-trivial fashion, your continuing to claim they haven't or that they are all bare mentions is not helpful. And unless User:DoriSmith is an alternate account of yours, perhaps you'll please let the editor then speak for themselves should they wish. Cheers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a notable phenomenon in pop culture. I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies, and it isn't just for some obscure sci-fi films.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_disguise&oldid=323307332"