«Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome.» — Agreed.
«However, this article is unique in that it was previously deleted,» — Disagreed; present article is substantially different from "
Human suit", for one thing, it's better developed.
«and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist.» — Disagreed; present article is not in the "status quo" of another article altogether. This is a de novo review, so "no consensus" means "no consensus", not "consensus to delete".
After all, presumably that other article was deleted because there was consensus to delete it, right? (Or wasn't there?) So surely it is significant that this time the consensus has shifted.
Actually, it could be appropriate to say that this AfD was processed as a DRV where a "no consensus" would equate to endorsement of the closure. I don't see an error here.--
Ramdrake (
talk)
22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)reply
If we want to close it that way, then we do it that way, but if we close it with "no consensus", then it was done wrong.
WP:AFD states: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept" (emphasis mine) Cheers!
Scapler (
talk)
23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I've looked over this AFD a few times now, and I see a clear and obvious consensus for deletion. As (obviously) not everyone sees it that way, I've broken down how the !votes look to me:
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
Delete as
original research. This doesn't appear to be an article at all but a list of various unrelated instances in fiction and other literature. If the supposed link is a recognised literary theme then there should be
reliable sources that identify and describe it - yet none can be found. I have no confidence that anyone has linked together
Men in Black,
The Old Testament and
The Illiad in this way outside of the article.
Guest9999 (
talk)
05:36, 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
Delete All the new references are fine and dandy, and there are no doubts dozens more around. But any attempt to gather them together without a Reliable Source is Synthesis. The article is in a sense an attempt to create a neologism, and we don't do that here.
PhGustaf (
talk)
20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Pure synthesis. No reliable source adresses the topic as a whole, making the article Wikipedian editors original synthesis, as opposed to a real article.
Hipocrite (
talk)
00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Topic" that exists only as an unsourced
synthesis based on individual instances (and, in a number of cases, on a poor understanding of those instances).
Deor (
talk)
01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Sure, writers have made up stories about aliens etc. disguised as humans. And with six billion people on the planet, there are articles/books that use the words "human disguise". However, there is no
secondary source that bothers to discuss this topic as a topic. Angels in human disguise, monsters in human disguise, robots in human disguise – but no
WP:RS discusses the topic of "human disguise". The article is
WP:SYNTH. If the supporters of the article really want it, please change it to a "List of..." and just list the examples with links to relevant Wikipedia articles.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, it boils down to "these things that use a human body as a disguise" but then veers off in so many directions that the article makes little sense, and is heavy on the synth.
Darrenhusted (
talk)
17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)reply
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
Delete Coatrack article, fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I've never seen such a disjointed collection on this subject except here. Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. Also, bar one word that has changed, meets CSD G4 criterion.--
Ramdrake (
talk)
18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)reply
delete I can't see this article being anything more than a list of examples which is probably not notable. Also seems to be a recreation of the human suit article.
Voiceofreason01 (
talk)
20:40, 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 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
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
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
Delete and salt, and hunt down and destroy any zombies formed from its corpse This is really an inadequately stealthy attempt to recreate the
human suit article, but ignoring that, it's still worthy of deletion. There is no effort whatsoever to identify this as a
literary trope that anyone cares about; it's a list of examples for which there is no article. And probably the reason there is no article (besides the aforementioned attempt to recreate deleted material-- i.e., the author didn't care) is that the notion of disguise is so basic that there is nothing notable you can say about it that isn't either said under
disguise itself or in any more specific article (e.g.
avatar and
incarnation).
Mangoe (
talk)
19:23, 1 November 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"
[1]). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P)01:17, 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
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
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
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. Verbalchat21:45, 28 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 |
Talk21:28, 30 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
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
Keep - "Human disguise" is a notable and encyclopedic subject, with lots of possible references, while "human suit" seems like a concept from a
cult.
Bearian (
talk)
01:06, 29 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
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
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. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jonathan321 (
talk •
contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2009
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.
DreamFocus21:38, 28 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
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
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 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)
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
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. — JeffG. ツ13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep: This page provides good information on a genre of literature that is all too common (especially in recent years). Im suprised such an article hasnt been done sooner. Id like to see more contribution to this page to help improve it, but the topic should certainly be kept and expanded. -
Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (
Talk |
Contribs)
19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think anyone will argue that the article doesn't need work, but that isn't a reason for
deletion. Keep and improve it. If it needs to be renamed, then rename it. If it needs to be trimmed, trim it. If it needs more/better sources, source it.
— BQZip01 —talk01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Allow me to sufficiently summarise the whole thing: is the topic worth discussing? Yes. Please spare us from wikilawyering and use that energy to fix the article. This AfD page is 78 kilobytes long. Abolish AfD. --Sincerely, a jaded regular, wwwwolf (
barks/
growls)
15:20, 3 November 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_Extraordinaire04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, I think you mischaracterized my "strong keep because as a broad theme it's clearly notable" argument as "inherited" — I didn't suggest inheritance from anyplace else, and have no idea where it would be "inherited" from. But since "inherited" is an invalid "keep" argument, I suppose I serves your purpose to slap that label on my and others' "keep" !votes where or not it actually fits. —
Sizzle Flambé (
☎/
✍)
08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
My !vote was also based on RS and notability grounds "This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept", and per my comments OR and SYNTH - but placing it in NOTE section will be fine. Verbalchat10:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Based on the above, it is pretty clear that the keep arguments were far stronger and thus if we went by strength and accuracy of arguments, it should be overturned to "keep," as the article is clearly discriminate, non-trivial, unoriginal research, that passes multiple guidelines, policies, and essays. Best, --
A NobodyMy talk18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
And that would be your opinion. This chart is (as I've said several times now) mine. Me, I look at the !votes for keep, and I see all of them as falling neatly into
AADD.
My !vote was a humorous attempt to show by example that the subject was clearly notable by modern references in both fiction and non-fiction contexts. If you think that is a useless or ilikeit response, you are severely discounting my links.
Miami33139 (
talk)
18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how "trivia" arguments work as per policy. #1 they are really just
WP:JNN. #2 like
WP:JNN it's an essay. I can find an essay for pretty much anything. I'd say that such !votes aren't addressing any policy/guideline based reasons to delete and so should be largely discounted.
Hobit (
talk)
22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not quite sure what you mean by
JNN as an essay, as it actually isn't—do you mean you think
AADD itself shouldn't be used? Now that would be interesting.
So far as trivia goes, I was looking at
TRIVIA (a guideline, fwiw) to see what it said about trivia articles, which got me to
HTRIVIA. If you know of something that applies more specifically, let me know.
However, looking at it some more, I think it makes sense to separate
INDISCRIMINATE from
NOTDIR, and then rename the trivia group to
NOTDIR—after all, "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" appears to (imo) cover pretty well what they were saying. Dori ❦ (
Talk ❖
Contribs ❖
Review) ❦00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
- rationale meets policy, guideline, or essay
- no qualifying rationale (
note)
- !vote for merge
- !vote unclear