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. For those who are tallying !votes, there were slightly more !deletes than !keeps, but a fairly even split with more than 30 persons expressing their view of what an online encyclopedia should or should not contain. Everyone is to be commended for conducting this as a very civil discussion. Mandsford 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of spoilers[edit]

List of spoilers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
since moved to List of notable plot twists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of trivia. If these spoilers are notable in some way, they would be better covered in the relevent film/book/game/etc. article. Korruski (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not trivia. This is a list of spoilers. How is this different from List of unusual articles?http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because list of unusual articles is a redirect out of articlespace. And too many of those are either subjective or the result of original research. Strong delete. DS (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I submitted that to Reddit. So what?
So, this would constitute stealth canvassing --Korruski (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was not aware of this policy. Am new to Wikipedia. Object404 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory --Korruski (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a serious comment? "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" _Maybe_ even thoguh it's not listed as an example. We're not defining spoilers, we're listing spoilers. 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.74.39 (talk)
Question: why is Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron which you proudly brandish in your personal user page deserving of a Wikipedia entry when it is simply a directory of people (Wikipedia:DIRECTORY) which falls under Wikipedia:Not, which is exactly why you want the the article deleted? Object404 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an attempt to list the most significant & notable spoilers in media, literature & history. It is not an indiscriminate list, nor is it random. Such an article deserves existence, and if there are things wrong with the list, it can be remedied by proper editing. http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 'spoiler' is really just a significant plot detail , so this article is no more than a potentially infinite list of indiscriminate plot details which, I firmly believe, breaches WP:NOT. I would be slightly happier if it were, for example, a list of notable spoilers and covered spoilers which have received some notoreity of their own. For example, the fact that Vader is Luke's father, and the twist to The Sixth Sense have probably received enough independent coverage to be seen as 'famous spoilers'. Even then, though, they would be better off simply included in Spoiler (Media) --Korruski (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that, because this is terribly unencyclopedic. An article like "List of significant plot twists" might be good but not this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. An article by a newcomer being not up to wikipedia standards is no reason to delete it. Just wikify and improve it. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just 'Wikifying' this isn't going to make it an article worth keeping. I don't see what there is to 'fix'. My proposed solution is to delete it. --Korruski (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I din't suggest merely wikifying. If you think that the subject matter would be better treated as a "list of notable spoilers", then let's rename and adjust the list accordingly. Deleting a two hour-old article by a newcomer when there is salvageable content in it strikes me as bitey and counter to our purposes. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear, I realise. If this was treated as a "list of notable spoilers" then I would see more justification for it, but I would still propose merging it with Spoiler (Media). Actually, even a merge seems unecessary as I can find no useful/salvageable content in this article. --Korruski (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't like the article. You nom'd it after 28 minutes of existence and 12 edits. I think we should give it time and energy, flesh it out and improve it. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. You haven't given it enough time to be fleshed out properly. Now renamed as per user:xeno's suggestion. Better? This page would probably be need to be split up into individual pages for the sub-categories as the content fills up.Object404 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshing it out is not the issue. Either way, I can see this remaining simply an indiscriminate collection of poorly sourced information. If this page does remain after the AfD then I strongly feel that no 'twist' should appear without a decent source establishing the notability of the plot twist itself and not simply the notability of the original work. --Korruski (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are the most discussed plot twists in the entirety of the internet. These do not fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE at all. There is a need to compile a list of these. Will add article citations to remedy this. Acceptable? Object404 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
404, while I agree that the list has value, some of the items on it will need to come off. Only those which can be reliably sourced as being "notable" would be able to stay. Thus, "Snape kills Dumbledore" would be notable because of the coverage it has received in mainstream press, while some of the others may not. A stylistic rewrite is in order, but I see this article as a good-faith creation, that has some value to the project and could be turned into an article that meets our standards. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I think it looks better that way. Good job!Object404 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benvewikilerim, you would do your case more good if you could avoid adding joke entries. IMHO, this only serves to reinforce my feeling that making this article useful, and then keeping it useful, well-sourced and vandalism-free is going to be well-nigh impossible. --Korruski (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth it -> That's not your problem. If you don't want to do it yourself, then let the people contributing to the article take care of that. Object404 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is my problem is that this article continues getting expanded with increasingly irrelevant entries while your promise of taking care of the citations of the article is increasingly broken. It is every Wikipedian's responsibility to ensure that everything on Wikipedia is properly sourced. The issue is not that I'm too lazy to "do it myself", it's that a lot of what is entering into the article is at worst a fabrication, at best a joke, and it needs to be removed completely. If I was lazy I wouldn't be addressing the issue by contributing here and elsewhere; I'd just be ignoring it. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Even though this "isn't a vote", you still can't !vote twice. If your comment is in response to someone, simply reply underneath their comment. If it's a general comment, just preface it with Comment instead of Keep. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Some of the items on this list (the snape kills dumbledore affair, for instance) are clearly spoilers, whereas others are plot twists. The two should be in separate lists/articles, should those individual articles merit creation. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and to further clarify what I was driving at, revealing a plot twist to someone who wasn't aware is almost always a spoiler, but a spoiler is not always a plot twist. –xenotalk 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, even at the time you wrote the above a significant super-majority of the comments here were post-rename. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, then List of unusual articles should be deleted. How was that article different from "a list of trivia"? As mentioned before, there is a need to list down notable plot twists in a single repository. For people looking for this kind of data, it would be difficult to scour every single article for plot twists. This entry would be an invaluable resource. There is no better way to create such an article/repository than with Wikipedia and its contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um. There is no List of unusual articles article. There is a Wikipedia:Unusual articles page outside of the main namespace. Wikipedia internal amusement and navigational aids are not subject to the same criteria as encyclopedia articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)List of unusual articles isn't an article. Its a link to a list in the Wikipedia namespace. The redirect probably should be deleted as an inappropriate CNR. Most of these facts of yours have no basis. How is there a need? Where is the demand for it? Who are these people looking for this data? Mr.Z-man 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*COMPLETE WRONG*. That entry started as a list of unusual articles. Give this article entry time, it's just a few hours old and hasn't been fleshed out yet. Mr., stupid as this sounds, just research the internet. You haven't given people the chance to flesh out the article with citations yet. As for proof, just go to Google.com, start typing "List of spoilers" or "List of plot twists" and you will see that Google will try to autocomplete those phrases for you. That means many people are looking precisely for this list. Object404 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. Someone just deleted list of unusual articles and stopped it redirecting to Wikipedia:Unusual articles just to make a point here. How mature of you. Object404 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Go look at the logs on the unusual articles page[1], it was not created as an article as far as I can tell… and even if it were, that would have been an obvious mistake. It's not article material, it's Wikipedia navel gazing though amusing wikipedia navel gazing. Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting to know Wikipedia before you begin with the all-caps bold-text assertions? --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I spend my time researching something that you already claim to know the answer to? You claim that people have a use for this, but can't point to anything except a vague "search the internet." Google auto-completes lots of stuff, some of it pure nonsense, that's not even close to an indication of importance or utility. Mr.Z-man 19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Object404 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then you need to demonstrate it through reliable, independent sources. This would be a better use of your time than continuing to add yet more unsourced examples. --Korruski (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following article: Agatha Christie’s family criticise Wikipedia for revealing Mousetrap ending - The family of Agatha Christie has criticised Wikipedia for revealing the ending of The Mousetrap, the world’s longest running play. There's been a number of discussions on it on the internet like this for example. So really, there is more to the creation of this article than just internet lulz and is also about internet rights. What do you guys think? Object404 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I think it's funny that that mention of The Mousetrap wasn't added until much later[3], and your plea for reddit users to come stack this discussion took the form of "Help! Cranky Wikipedia editor trolls are trying to destroy good clean fun!". None the less— there is nothing about "internet rights" to even discuss here. Don't fall for the drivel pushed out by worthless "news" organizations on slow news days. This kind of information exists all over Wikipedia in the appropriate articles already, and there is absolutely no danger of any of it being removed.
If anything this list does a disservice to the most compelling argument related to "spoilers": that we can't have a complete encyclopaedia coverage of a subject without divulging these critical details. By failing to be especially informative, encyclopaedic, or even accurate this lulzy list doesn't make for a good justification. If this was the only way that 'spoilers' existed in Wikipedia, I might argue that it simply isn't worth having them at all. I'd suggest taking this article to TV Tropes since it already imitates their organizational style far more than it does Wikipedia's— but really the writing there is far better than this article is, or really, better than it could ever hope to be. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 404 didn't make the "plea" you reference, I did. When I first saw the article, I thought it was jocular, but that there was salvageable content. Deleting it simply because it does not, in its current form, conform to our standards seemed to me, and still does, to be short-sighted. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a matter of proper writing style and citation then. Give the article time to be fleshed out. It's not easy to finish it in the span of a few hours, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "all a matter of proper writing style and citation", though the improvement of that isn't helped by your edit warring[4]. I stand by my initial statement— that this probably ought to just be a (set of) categor(y|ies). You've yet to suggest why you think that wouldn't be a reasonable solution. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. While that would be a marked improvement, I still think the overall list would suffer from POV issues, scope, etc. I find myself more compelled by the argument that the information belongs in the relevant article about that work, such as the movie or book. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current state of the article[6] where lots of IP users keep removing sourced info and adding unsourced info, I fear this has no chance of actually meeting guidelines. It should go. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is definitely improved. That article in 'TheAge' is exactly the kind of source that is needed if this concept is ever to work. My concern remains that this kind of source is hard to find, and most editors will not bother, meaning this article will either stay very short and incomplete or (more likely) slowly revert to being full of jokes, nonsense and a potentially infinite list of plot twists with no meaningful sources. My current preference would still be to simply make this a category (e.g. 'Films with notable plot twists') and then establish the notability of the twist on the film page itself. However, I guess I'm open to being convinced otherwise. --Korruski (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What principle is this? We have some enormous lists already such as the List of minor planets which has about 200,000 entries. It is our policy that we are not paper nor do we have a deadline and so there is no limit to our ambition in principle. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The important differences are that List of minor planets has a very clear and definite scope and criteria, and is a list recorded by an recognised authority. This article does not have a clear and definite scope (what defines a twist?), the criteria for inclusion appears to be entirely POV (what makes a twist notable?), and there is no recognised authority on the subject. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem would be solved by the suggestion to make this a category, and this would still assist readers in navigating to these cases without spoiling plots that they don't want spoilt. --Korruski (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with Korruski. If this is to work at all it should be a category. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone disagrees that some plot twists are notable on their own, but why isn't the response to that a discussion about them in the articles you mentioned? What informative value does a great big list offer when those articles exists and provide a framework for a comprehensive discussion of the subject?--Gmaxwell (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my honest belief that there is a need for a centralized repository/catalogue of this kind of content and said repository page will outgrow those two articles above mentioned by memset, Plot twist and Spoiler (media). Moreover, it would serve as a very useful reference in the future for people doing research on the subject, and will be a big help for future generations. Object404 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2010 (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.
More