Fire in entertainment – Deletion endorsed. The strong consensus of this discussion is that the closer accurately assessed the original debate. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fire in entertainment (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This deletion process has been based on alleged WP:OR but there was absolutely no analysis or synthesis of published material to construct any new conclusion. The article used a main symbolic element of art works with full notability already confirmed by Wikipedia (all mentioned art works had article links). Lists like List of chemists, List of rivers of Thuringia, and even Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire (are they indiscriminate???) also likewise list articles based on certain main characterizing elements without giving any proof that also others already sorted and listed that way. So WP:OR obviously does not forbid any listing and sorting of fully notable articles by thematically characterizing elements. MathLine (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete. Per the hatnote at the AfD and the discussion at the user's talk page, the closing administrator has weighed the merits of the arguments and applied the deletion policy correctly. The user has not provided any information that was unavailable at the time of deletion to indicate that the deletion was based on incorrect information or inappropriate application of policy. Also, deletion review is not "AFD part 2"; simply rehashing the same nonsensical arguments just because the outcome wasn't the one you wanted simply won't work. (Note: I !voted to delete in the original discussion.) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. MathLine raised the deletion on my talk page at User talk:KaisaL#Your illegal deletion of article Fire in entertainment, claiming that it was "illegal". I have replied there with an expansion of my reasoning for the decision, refuting the point that it was based sorely on original research issues, and pointed him to deletion review as is his right. I am happy that my close was within process and uncontroversial. I will not make any additional comment here as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion I really don't think the AfD could have been correctly closed any other way. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping\|HighInBC))} 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per above - All of the !votes were policy based whereas the !Keep was more or less a rant and then by the end of that rant they appeared to have been completely confused as to what site they were on, (Who uses Twitter hashtags on the 'Pedia I mean seriously?), Anywho there was no policy based reason to Keep, Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Good close by KaisaL; as HighInBC said there was no other possible outcome. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Of course artists are always a bit tempted to fall into the 5 steps of visibility suppression for success keeping (1. recognizing collective subconscious dreams, 2. producing art that reflects in metaphors these dreams so that it is hence systematically connected to these dreams thematically, 3. being successful because people recognize their subconscious dreams in this art, 4. gaining popularity and influence due to this continued success, 5. using this influence to organize suppression of developments that increase visibility clarity of the dreams to preserve the success) so please see Graham's hierarchy of disagreement before obedient and conformistic repetitions become excessive here. --MathLine (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I've struck your !vote as you're the DRV filer and therefore shouldn't be !voting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Please let us know when you have an actual policy-based argument instead of pseudophilosophical logorrhea. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Procedure was followed correctly. Article is very clearly synthesis. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as, although I had apparently not voted, I would've likely voted Delete anyway, I'm simply not seeing how this could be convinced as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse couldn't have been closed any other way. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The nominator has requested I and another user be blocked for "vandalism" [sic]; see KaisaL's talk page. I think a case of WP:NOTHERE may be in the process of being established. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Question: Wikipedia:Viability of lists#Being discriminate gives as examples: List of wings would handle a topic so broad and diverse it encompasses a subject too large to easily categorize, while in a List of U.S. Presidents with brown eyes listing of U.S. Presidents is quite small and grouping people by their eye color is almost unheard of. But does Category:Fire in fiction (and associated Category:Films about arson) show so great notability and discrimination that listing art works that contain fire in fiction is shown to be not comparable with the List of wings example (due to the much greater amount of subcategories of Category:Wings (aviation)) which indicates merging into articles of those fire related categories instead of deletion? --MathLine (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fire in entertainment – Deletion endorsed. The strong consensus of this discussion is that the closer accurately assessed the original debate. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion process has been based on alleged WP:OR but there was absolutely no analysis or synthesis of published material to construct any new conclusion. The article used a main symbolic element of art works with full notability already confirmed by Wikipedia (all mentioned art works had article links). Lists like List of chemists, List of rivers of Thuringia, and even Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire (are they indiscriminate???) also likewise list articles based on certain main characterizing elements without giving any proof that also others already sorted and listed that way. So WP:OR obviously does not forbid any listing and sorting of fully notable articles by thematically characterizing elements. MathLine (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete. Per the hatnote at the AfD and the discussion at the user's talk page, the closing administrator has weighed the merits of the arguments and applied the deletion policy correctly. The user has not provided any information that was unavailable at the time of deletion to indicate that the deletion was based on incorrect information or inappropriate application of policy. Also, deletion review is not "AFD part 2"; simply rehashing the same nonsensical arguments just because the outcome wasn't the one you wanted simply won't work. (Note: I !voted to delete in the original discussion.) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. MathLine raised the deletion on my talk page at User talk:KaisaL#Your illegal deletion of article Fire in entertainment, claiming that it was "illegal". I have replied there with an expansion of my reasoning for the decision, refuting the point that it was based sorely on original research issues, and pointed him to deletion review as is his right. I am happy that my close was within process and uncontroversial. I will not make any additional comment here as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I really don't think the AfD could have been correctly closed any other way. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above - All of the !votes were policy based whereas the !Keep was more or less a rant and then by the end of that rant they appeared to have been completely confused as to what site they were on, (Who uses Twitter hashtags on the 'Pedia I mean seriously?), Anywho there was no policy based reason to Keep, Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close by KaisaL; as HighInBC said there was no other possible outcome. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Of course artists are always a bit tempted to fall into the 5 steps of visibility suppression for success keeping (1. recognizing collective subconscious dreams, 2. producing art that reflects in metaphors these dreams so that it is hence systematically connected to these dreams thematically, 3. being successful because people recognize their subconscious dreams in this art, 4. gaining popularity and influence due to this continued success, 5. using this influence to organize suppression of developments that increase visibility clarity of the dreams to preserve the success) so please see Graham's hierarchy of disagreement before obedient and conformistic repetitions become excessive here. --MathLine (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your !vote as you're the DRV filer and therefore shouldn't be !voting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know when you have an actual policy-based argument instead of pseudophilosophical logorrhea. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Procedure was followed correctly. Article is very clearly synthesis. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as, although I had apparently not voted, I would've likely voted Delete anyway, I'm simply not seeing how this could be convinced as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse couldn't have been closed any other way. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has requested I and another user be blocked for "vandalism" [sic]; see KaisaL's talk page. I think a case of WP:NOTHERE may be in the process of being established. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Wikipedia:Viability of lists#Being discriminate gives as examples: List of wings would handle a topic so broad and diverse it encompasses a subject too large to easily categorize, while in a List of U.S. Presidents with brown eyes listing of U.S. Presidents is quite small and grouping people by their eye color is almost unheard of. But does Category:Fire in fiction (and associated Category:Films about arson) show so great notability and discrimination that listing art works that contain fire in fiction is shown to be not comparable with the List of wings example (due to the much greater amount of subcategories of Category:Wings (aviation)) which indicates merging into articles of those fire related categories instead of deletion? --MathLine (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.