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 no consensus. I see no other possible closure here. Participants are all over the map, Delete, Rename, Keep, Redirect, Merge, Reorient, Turn it into a DAB? There is no consensus here with all of these different suggestions. I hope this discussion doesn't die with this AFD closure and you move it to the article talk page where interested editors can take BOLD action with this article and come up with a mutual proposal you can carry out. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insectoid[edit]

Insectoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

More of a WP:DICTDEF than anything; many of the sources used only briefly mentioned the term and most of the article spends its time discussing trivial pop culture references and aliens. That said, insectoid robots are discussed with some detail in multiple sources, so that might be a valid article, but again, this is definitely not. An anonymous username, not my real name 07:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has what appears to be RS'ed commentary. Not seeing why trimming excessive trivia would not work to improve this. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, should it be moved to insectoid robots? An anonymous username, not my real name 22:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, 'insectoid' is an adjective that you've noted is used in multiple contexts. Why should it just cover one? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles should be about a single context, not multiples per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and titles shouldn't be adjectives at all, per WP:ADJECTIVE. SpinningSpark 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking more on this, you're right. Disambiguate to different uses of the term in the various contexts. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a terrible WP:SYNTH of robotics, UFOlogy, and science fiction. Wikipedia articles should be about a single subject, not a dictionary plus entry per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Much of the sourcing for the "Ufology" section is extremely dodgy fringe "research", not WP:RS as claimed by Jclemens. The "Other media" section is basically a cruft list of fiction with insectiod creatures with no source giving an overall description of insectoids in fiction, nor is there any encyclopaedic commentary on it in the article. I agree that Insectoid robot might make an article, but this isn't it – there are only two sentences in that section. SpinningSpark 23:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've amended my comment accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTDICT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SpinningSpark. We don't have articles for just any adjective that wanders down the pike. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and disambiguate I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notablity for both the subjects of Insectoid robot and Insectoid alien. After the split this should be a disambiguation page referring to both + Insect + Wiktionary:insectoid. Daranios (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your proposal runs smack dab into WP:partial title matches, i.e. what dab pages are supposed to exclude. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I don't think that guideline is ideal for our subject here, but well, split only then. See also sections might be the next-best replacement to disambiguation page to help with navigation. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Updating my opinion to keep, slightly rephrase and improve, possibly rename, and split out Insectoid robot as another notable topic. I was originally swayed by Spinningspark's reference to WP:ADJECTIVE, but now I've realized that "insectoid" is also a substantive, used in science fiction as a synonym for "Insectoid alien". Which of those is the more WP:COMMONNAME can be decided outside the deletion discussion. As I said, I think that topic is notable, and even if the current article needs a lot of improvement, that can be accomplished through normal editing while preserving some of the current content. The technology section then no longer falls into the purview of this topic, but should be preserved and expanded in a separate article, or possibly combined with Hexapod (robotics). Daranios (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the article is not merely a dictionary definition - the article and its sources are talking about the context and the ways that insectoid creatures impact / are used by science fiction creators in multiple ways, and as this book by the University of Minnesota Press indicates "the rise of the science fiction genre of weird, often enormously sized insectiod creatures is to be noted, at times also part of the popular discourse, for example , a New York Times story from 1880 ..." it has been a subject of interest for a LONG period of time. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Insect_Media/cLbYMCjAXY8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=insectoid . if articles cannot be adjectives ( green ) , then a rename to something super clumsy like insectoid creatures in science fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.96 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not entirely sure what your point is; it appears you trailed off mid-sentence. Are you saying that we shouldn't use the most accurate title because it's "super clumsy"? Colors are a far more complex topic which warrant a class of their own — your comparison is flawed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it's not our job to create collections of all the possible meanings of every word (except, within reason, on disambiguation pages). We have separate articles on a great many similarly named but vastly different topics, so why should this be any different? An anonymous username, not my real name 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The entry in BRAVE NEW WORDS is sadly just limited to a dictionary comment that it's an adjective to insect-like. The term does appear to be used in passing in sf encyclopedias, some cited in the text, but not all, and none provides any WP:SIGCOV meeting discussion of this concept. As such, much of what is in the article seems WP:OR. My BEFORE did find one promising source, an academic article on "Humans, insectoid aliens, and the creation of ecophobia in science fiction", unfortunately I falied at finding a copy of this that I could access. And in books, I also found [1], which seems to be a treatment of this concept going on for likely 3+ pages (sadly, again my view is limited). Both of them seem to strongly suggest this topic meets WP:SIGCOV and and can be rescued. From the former, "The motif of the insect is widely used in the media and in popular culture.... is especially obvious in the representation of the abject human/insect hybrids that form the most common enemy in popular culture media" and from the latter: "Bugs or bug-like shapes are a common trope... 'insectoid' has become auch a ubiquitous way of representing alien life that it has became almost a cliche". Overall, I have concerns much of the present article is ORish and merits WP:TNT, but the "Other media" section has potential; the topic can likely be stubbed and expanded with the reliable sources found here (or the few present in the article already). Ping User:XOR'easter, UserTompaDompa, User:UncleG who have a good record of rewriting this (and so do I, I just don't know if I'll have time or will to tackle this before this AfD concludes, plus I am not very fond of creepy crawlies). Also ping User:Jclemens and User:Daranios, I am mildly suprised I am more "keepy" here then you. (Although it is possible we may need some disambig between insectioids in fiction and the insectoid robots in real-life engineering, I am not sure if the ufology section is reliably sourced and where it could be merged if anywhere). PS. Final thought: the concept of insects in fiction/insects in popular culture is likely a notable one, and I'll note we have articles (some of which are as usual in poor shape) on Insects in literature, List of films featuring insects, Parasites in fiction, Arthropods in film, as well as Parasitoid#In_science_fiction - there is probably a need for some merger/renaming here. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. I messed up pings for User:TompaDompa and User:Uncle G. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Engineering. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting here though the majority of participating editors are advocating Delete, there are some opinions being argued here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Piotrus: I'm surprised to see you at keep here, we are more often the other way round at AFD. I agree that Insectoids in science fiction may have legs, but that doesn't stop the current page being a WP:COATRACK of disparate meanings. I can go along with moving to a new title and removing the irrelevant stuff. Possibly also the creation of insectoid robot which may also be notable. I'm going to request the sources you found at the library. Email me if you want them copied to you. SpinningSpark 10:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Email sent. I am pretty sure "Insectoids in science fiction" can be salvaged from this mess. Would be nice if folks interested in robotics and ufology could chime in on these other aspects. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark and Piotrus: In case you like to get going on Insectoid robot, I wanted to point to Hexapod (robotics), which I didn't realize existed before. Depending on what you find in sources, there may be enough overlap to only expand that article, or enough on bioinspiration with regard to behaviour, flight ability and the like to warrant a separate one. Daranios (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I found academic sources discussing the use of insect intelligence, vision, and strategies in robots. Thanks for finding that article, but the topic clearly goes well beyond insect locomotion. SpinningSpark 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think Insectoids in science fiction (or some title along those lines) is salvageable. "Insect monsters in movies are well known to any serious addict of science fiction," as Cherry (2012) points out, with examples to back up the point. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• New position. Move to Insectoids in science fiction. Cut out the "Technology" section into a new article insectoid robot. Remove the "Ufology" section altogether – from what I can see, an article on this would heavily rely on fringe sources. There will be no need for a dab page, robots are not referred to as insectoids except adjectively, whereas SF creatures are sometimes called that. SpinningSpark 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Daranios makes an interesting poing - isn't insectoid robot topic already covered under Hexapod (robotics)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See my reply to Daranios, hexapod robots are only part of the topic. It's hard to see how this, for instance, could be part of the hexapod article. Or this or this. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark True, but then I don't think that insect navigation or insect vision is really related to the concept of insectoid robot; as far as I know those kind of solutions can be used in robots that don't look anything like insects. That said, yes, not all insects are hexapods. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...not all insects are hexapods. They're not? I thought that was pretty much the definition. See Insect#Definition. SpinningSpark 17:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark Blerp. Thanks for reminding me the difference between insects and anthropods. But in that case, I think my original article - about merging the robot part to hexapod (robotics) article - makes sense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're going to put up opposition to the idea that programming insect intelligence into a robot does not amount to an insectoid robot AND sources using the term insectoid for this cannot be found then fine, just deal with it with a hatnote to hexapod. I was planning to write something from the sources available but I'm not going to do it in the teeth of opposition. SpinningSpark 12:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark By no means I intend to stop you from writing stuff. I am just staying that the two topics seem related. But if you want to stub insectoid robot instead, be my guest. A merge can be considered at some point, no urgency. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Insectoid alien (without leaving a redirect, or with a soft redirect to Wiktionary) and remove the technology part so it's no longer WP:SYNTH. This article is clearly misnamed; and is too vaguely named. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would remove the concept-level WP:SYNTH, but the content-level WP:SYNTH would remain. TompaDompa (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case I have to amend my !vote to move to insectoid alien without a redirect and then merge with Extraterrestrials in fiction. This is unlikely to be a viable article in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was pinged by Piotrus above. This article is an absolute mess, doing precisely what WP:NOTDICTIONARY tells us not to do (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.). It may be the case that we should have articles called insectoid robot and insectoid alien (currently a redirect), but those should obviously be separate articles, and it might be a better idea to cover those topics in other articles—I'm inclined to think it would be better to cover different types of aliens in the article Extraterrestrials in fiction rather than having a bunch of different articles for different kinds of depictions, for instance. Looking at the sources in the "Other media" section, it turns out it's just a WP:CARGO-style collection of examples gathered from sources that do not cover the overarching topic and strung together by the application of WP:SYNTHESIS. It may look like proper content, but it's a TV Tropes-style list in prose form. This content does not constitute a proper basis for a hypothetical insectoid alien article (or indeed, section). It would probably be better to start over from scratch, using sources that actually cover the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2022 (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.