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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tannhauser Gate[edit]

This is an article about a fictional battle (in this case mentioned, not even depicted in the original work) that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. I have nominated it separately because it include an original research-laden section about minor references in other fictional works. Savidan 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge real-world production information and redirect to List of Blade Runner characters#Roy_Batty. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a fictional term that has spawned all manner of original research. The article states: "There has been popular speculation…" and that's what we have. Blade Runner is a great movie — but Wikipedia is not a fansite:
—Find and collaborate with people who love what you love, and stop filling this project up with inappropriate content. It's disruptive.
Jack Merridew 07:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's part of the folklore of mass culture, my own opinion is that if it is deleted it will impoverish Wikipedia as a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.93.42.253 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — 189.93.42.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains way too much material not properly sourced. If the article cannot be better sourced to secondary sources, as per WP:PSTS, then merge and redirect as per User:EEMIV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Delete and create redirect to Blade Runner. Much speculation, essentially zero content. --Calton | Talk 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the only content was the mention in the Blade Runner speech, I would say we should delete it, however, it does have a lot of usage elsewhere in popular culture. In addition to the examples given in the article, I also found this, and I have heard it used countless times in various sci-fi contexts, particularly in scif-fi computer games. I believe in the example I gave it says it was "a level in Homeworld", which is a space sim. Because of the fact that it springs up in so many places outside of Blade Runner, I think the article satisfies WP:N. That single line in Blade Runner does not make it notable, but the impact that line has had makes it notable. Another interesting thing to check out is the number of times the line is used on Flickr. I am also curious as to what makes you say that it violates Wikipedia's policy on fiction. How does it violate WP:WAF? Also, you called the "References in popular culture" section original research, but it isn't OR. I agree that it doesn't have references and it should, but the fact that information isn't cited doesn't make it OR. Lastly, Jack Merridew's quote of "There has been popular speculation" was taken out of context. He construed the quote to be in reference to what a/the Tannhauser Gate is, but it was saying that there has been popular speculation that the name derived from the Wagner opera or its title character, which is perfectly reasonable, as the script writers of Blade Runner did not give an origin for the name and the opera and character are a famous use of the same name. Neil Clancy 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV tropes is a user-generated site, not a reliable source. And...Flikr? Seriously? Savidan 02:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that TV tropes is user-generated. So is Wikipedia, in case you haven't noticed. But that's not the point. I'm not advocating using those sites as references, I'm simply saying that there is far more to the term "Tannhauser Gate" than just the line from Blade Runner. I was giving examples of other places that the term is used. Neil Clancy 20:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neil Clancy; while the original reference itself is not notable, it's wider appearance in popular culture is.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fictional element occurring in two separate franchises, there is no good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this bit of a quote from a movie has ramified astoundingly far into books and other reliable sources. Also, the article gets 200 page views a day. If ever there was a case for the sort of arguments that are usually disparaged in AfDs; "useful", "interesting", "the kind of thing Wikipedia is for", "people want detailed coverage of fictional topics" or "Ignore All Rules", this one is it. Abductive (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neil Clancy. This is not just about Blade Runner. It's about a fictional place or event that has been mentioned in many other works as well. Devon1980 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I realize that the argument "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for keeping and article that has been nominated for deletion, we do have other articles, such as Antidisestablishmentarianism, which are notable not for their original usage but for their subsequent uses and impact on popular culture. Antidisestablishmentarianism would be an obscure and archaic term describing a no-longer-relevant sociopolitical issue, not notable enough for its own article, except for the fact that it has been used since then countless times in popular culture. Neil Clancy 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article appears to be pure speculation. There are no published sourced listed for the claims that these are references to the film, only fan speculation. Savidan 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added an explicit reference; but the point is irrelevant, see Devon1980's comment below. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Tannhauser Gate is used as reference to Blade Runner, does not make the entire article pure speculation. It's TG itself that is referred to, by several media. For that reason alone the article cannot be merged with any other article. One can hardly ignore the fact though that TG isn't mentioned anywhere before 1982. Devon1980 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blade Runner is one of those rare entities that has touched people and whilst not factual in an Encyclopaedia Britannica fashion it has managed to pervade into popular culture and remain there for 20+ years. It stands as a bastion of good cinema, based on an even better book. I thought this wiki was there as a source of knowledge, all knowledge, not a restricted sphere. Fahrenheit 420. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.57.43 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tannhauser Gate has taken on a life of its own since 1982, film neo-noir references abound.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[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.