Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (4th nomination)

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. Based on the arguments presented, there is a clear consensus to KEEP at this time D P 19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted several years ago. A request was made to review the deletion, citing additional sources which have come to light since the AfD. AfD is a better forum to evaluate the questions raised at the DRV, so I've restored the article and am listing it here. This is an administrative listing; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This should never have been deleted in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources provided in the DRV seem enough in-and-of themselves. There is a serous problem with an exact definition, but the way to deal with that is for the article to address it rather than to delete the article. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article's AfD history is extensive. The first one in 2005 had deletes citing a lacking in WP:GNG and some forms of WP:OR which during the time, may be true. However the genre and the article has come a long way since. Today I have found multiple independent reliable sources referencing Dieselpunk as a distinct genre separate from other cyberpunk derivatives and sets a clear definition as to what it means. Here are some sources:

News publications:

Book publications:

Game publications (I was unable to access some sources due to corporate blocking):

If another editor could help me add those sources and removed some cruft that would be great! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment' Just added two of the sources and removed tons of possible OR. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Dot reference looks reliable, in depth and secondary. Szzuk (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-establish redirect to Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk. I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. This is almost the exact material that was deleted (and subsequently upheld at deletion review) a few years back, and all of its problems with original research, synthesis, and a lack of reliable sources remain. Of the links mentioned above by User:Valoem, there is one reliable source, the Daily Dot article. All of the others are passing mentions or self-published sources. An article that makes as many claims as this one does cannot be supported by a single source. - Eureka Lott 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an argument for cleanup. So all of the references need deleting (apart from The Daily Dot) and most of the OR. I'd suggest someone hack away. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article is built atop a foundation of unreliable sources and is fundamentally flawed. I think the best thing to do is blow it up and start over. - Eureka Lott 20:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it should be blown up too. I just don't think it needs deleting, and don't want to blow it up myself. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article history was restored after the 2010 deletion review discussion to assist in the creation of a new article that could avoid the flaws of its previous incarnations. Unfortunately, it's had the opposite effect, resulting in several attempts to resurrect this untenable version. I don't see a good option other than deleting it and starting over. - Eureka Lott 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a clean up would need to be done very methodically. Some references appear to have been overlooked in prior AfDs. For example, the reference to io9 may be acceptable along with Wired magazine (dead link). Altered Gamer also suggests that video games have defined a difference between dieselpunk and other genres. I went ahead and removed the most blatant ORs, the other appear to be questionable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Much of the information found in the article has direct references in The Daily Dot, I just went ahead and added a few. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, there is no reason to delete non-RS refs. We cannot rely on non-RS, but nor do we have to remove them simply on that ground. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin concerned has now been canvassed to join back in and no doubt to threaten his usual blocks for any mutinies on board, I would draw the attention of those interested to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Advice, please? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think the dieselpunk has reached the point of a stand alone article. With forums, streaming audio channels, and websites dedicated to the genre by name. ~ Brother William (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an admin closure for this AfD to prevent any controversies going forward. Article is on its 4th AfD it appears consensus has changed, but due to its extensive history admin closure is proper in this case. Thanks! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:22, 11 April 2014 (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.