Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for the tanker
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft article on one scene from the movie Mad Max 2. There's no need for this to have its own article, and it's using an infobox designed for real-life military conflict to boot. 23skidoo 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main article doesn't have a scene-by-scene breakdown of the film, so I don't see why this should remain intact. A synopsis would suffice, at most. (aeropagitica) 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see any reason to have this have it's own article. And the title: "Battle for the tanker"? Come on. K1Bond007 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree. Given the impact of this film upon Western culture, having an article describing the battle is certainly indicated. Furthermore, having the battle described seperately from the more conventional details of the plot serves to elucidate the idea that the film is important not only in terms of the cinematography as discussed in the main article, but also as a tactical lesson for aspiring post-apocalyptic commandos. Certainly, the tanker-scene deserves as much coverage as the Battle of the Bulge or Normandy.
68.100.8.218 20:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]
- You have got to be joking. I invite you to provide citations and sources to suggest that a fictional road-battle comes anywhere close to the Battle of Normandy! 23skidoo 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really sir, your contention that Normandy is more important than Battle for the Tanker (please refer to it as such) simply doesn't do. For one, your contention likely rests upon the fallacious idea that "reality," which scholarly types are so attached to, is somehow more important than fiction. (1) No less, it is also implicit in another statement by yourself (q.v.) that Normandy is more important than Battle for the Tanker because people were actually killed in Normandy. (2) Your irrational attachment to violent conflicts highlights a misconception that violent acts are more memorable than nonviolent acts, like for example making the contention that Renaissaince Art is less worthy of historical documentation than the Crusades, for the reason that the Crusades involved so many deaths. (3) As such, I shall provide a series of citations, at your own insistance, that not only substantiates my original post, but most clearly erradicates any possibility that you can posit a valid argument that this article be a legitamate candidate for deletion. Truly sir, I can ask only that you listen to reason here. If anything, I should like for you to admit the true reason why you find yourself in such firm disliking of the article, and also please explain why you have invited a bevy of like-minded persons to launch further attacks upon it.
Sources, as requested.
(1) http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/
(2) http://www.friesian.com/existent.htm
(3) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
68.100.8.218 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]
- ROFLMAO. I asked for sources that indicate explicitly that the Battle for the tanker is more important than the Battle of Normandy and you give me a philosophy lesson. That's rich. Doesn't matter anyway. What my reality is telling me is people seem (at the moment) to agree with my point of view and that's what matters. And if you take the Sartre article as letter of the law, no article should ever be deleted. Good luck trying to sell that to TPTB. 23skidoo 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Skido, I feel very fortunate to have won you over to my side. As far as Those Persons who run this publication, have you any connections to them? Perhaps a few kind words from yourself would be enough to dissuade them from any hasty and regretable actions. Certainly, we are interested in a solution to this dilemna that will produce the best results for all interested parties. I can tell now that you are a man of reason. As for Mssrs. Khoikhoi, Joshua and Grey I am not quite sure what to say. It seems likely that they harbor no good intentions towards the long-term stability of this article, and as such must be regarded with some suspicion. I advise you to please use discretion in any interaction with them!! A few careless words might be all that's necessary to give them the day. In the meantime, I shall undertake to research more, and to devise a strategy of preservation. Might I be so bold as to inquire what our next step shall be?
12.44.12.126 12:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]
I don't see anyone having problems with the Star Wars battle entries, and they use infoboxes designed for real-life military conflicts to boot.--Mole Man 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gotten around to them yet. 23skidoo 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, some of them are far more popular and well known and deserve their own page. Battle of Hoth, Yavin, Endor. These are pretty notable. I'm not saying all of the Star Wars ones are encyclopedic and deserve their own page, but this "Battle for the tanker" and "Battle for the volcano" certainly don't deserve their own articles. IMHO anyway. Most of the SW ones should probably be merged together as the random ones I looked at were stubs. K1Bond007 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment. And my previous statement shouldn't be seen as an intent to AFD Battle of Yavin, for example ... however the Volcano and Tanker battles are not worthy of their own articles and I must confess at being rather offended at the earlier statement that this deserves the same sort of coverage as battles (Normandy, Bulge) in which people actually died. 23skidoo 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JoshuaZ 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Peter Grey 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete argument to keep is nonsense. This does not rise to notability. Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mon. Herbert, You seem to be preocupied with notability. What criterium are you using to make this evaluation? Under the circumstances, it seems likely that you haven't thought this through, since you have not at length done anything to qualify your statement. Why not take a few moments to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines??
- After you make a careful review of these policies, I am sure you will be better qualified to have a candid discussion with me about article selection and deletion candidacy. Truly, I feel that you have the best interests of Wikipedia's readership at heart. 12.44.12.126 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]
- 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.