Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeLorean time machine

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeLorean time machine

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

Article filled with mostly original research and duplication of plot details from Back to the Future and related films. Although time travel is the main plot point of each of the films, the actual time machine is not notable enough to warrant an individual article. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - not sufficiently cited is not a valid deletion reason. Details would make plot section of film articles too long, so this article was separated out from those articles, also so as not to repeat these details in multiple articles. As a subarticle of a clearly notable topic, this article should not be deleted. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—"Not sufficiently cited" is not a reason this article is proposed for deletion. The time machine itself is not notable enough and has not been sufficiently covered in non-fan material. First page of Google search results lists only fansites and Wikis, and no links of substance. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - notability doesn't apply to subarticles. Subarticles are simply for convenience and inherit the notability of the main article. Yworo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I was under the impression that notability was NOT inherited. But if I'm wrong, please provide me with a link to the wp guidleine stating otherwise. Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Mtiffany71, you are right. Notability is NOT inherited. See WP:INHERITED.—Chris!_c/t 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - the notability is not inherited applies to main articles. A set of articles with a main article and subarticles is considered a single article for notability purposes. You are misapplying WP:INHERITED. For further information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). Yworo (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - No, I did not misapply WP:INHERITED. It clearly says "notability of a parent entity or topic does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities". And Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) has nothing to do with inherited notability. It only instructs editor when and how to spun off long articles.—Chris!_c/t 02:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bulk of article is synthesis and original research (comparison to the TARDIS from Dr. Who, speculation about when and where the "Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor" was acquired, whether leaded gasoline would damage the car's engine, etc.) If synthesis and original research were removed, article would be little more than a stub indicating that the car was plot device. More appropriate as sub-section in BTTF page. Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the article is notable enough to be kept. This article is seriously original research. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I agree with the "subarticle" argument. Films are popular enough for it to be notable in some circles. Warp drive (Star Trek) is perhaps more "notable" but should also be (or should at some point have been) deleted on the basis of the above if this one is. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Retracted per subsequent comments. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure, the film itself is notable, but the fictional time travel machine used in the film is not. While the lack of references itself is not a valid reason for deletion, the availability of reliable sources are used to gauge whether the topic is notable or not. Editors who believe that notability is inherited are seriously misguided. See WP:INHERITED.—Chris!_c/t 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into the Back to the Future films. While key to the story lines, they don't really go into much detail in the films. It is just the means to get to the rest of the story, after which it takes a back seat. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP simply on the basis of inclusionism, but also because the Delorean deserves it's own page. Do you need a reason? oh, apparently you do, well, because it is not only a prop in a film, but also a statement about the collective dreams of mankind and the want to be able to change the past or to control the future, and also the dreams in the future that man may wield the power of time travel, although, if, in the future man could wield the power of time travel, would he not come back he and be all like "I'm from the future, arn't you freakin' out, past man?", unless, of course, it was one of those time machines where you couldn't go back in time to before the machine was invented, however the delorean doesn't seem to have this problem, it is, in essence, the perfect time machine, it can get you around in the present (whenever that may be, as it is the present for the time traveller) as well as transport you through time, so it is a multifunctional movement device allowing travel in at least 4 dimensions. So, it is more than a prop in a film and more than a simple modified car, it is the very dream of humanity, and all of our hopes and dreams, all bundled up into one car. And so, for the reasons I have mentioned above, I am voting, as I said in the prologue, a STRONG KEEP. That is all. CybergothiChé (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quite possibly the most rambling incoherent argument to keep an article. What reason are you actually submitting for inclusion? Sottolacqua (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thankyou, I do my best. My reason is in two parts,

part the first : Inclusionism - this is an online encyclopedia, and is not bound by the restraints of a printed tome, therefore can have an almost indefinite amount of articles, and should be a compendium of all human knowledge (gotta think big);

part the second : the DeLorean time machine is a quintessential part of 80s/early 90s culture and is fittingly deserving of it's own article, with perhaps a link on the main BTTF article which links to the article (something along the lines of "see also : DeLorean Time Machine") CybergothiChé (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations. Couching them in this way is quite acceptable because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT are not solid arguments for keeping an article. This is essentially a prop from a movie, and the article is filled with original research and plot information from each of the films, not necessarily information validating the notability of the main article topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of "movie props" that have developed independent notability for a stand-alone article, just as has this one. And as the most central plot device from this series, it has done just that... just as has Starship Enterprise and Millenium Falcon. And please, WP:AGF. As I am not offering these examples per WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT... only as guideline encouraged precedents where a plot device has achieved an acceptable notability to merit an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of sources for this, of course, as the prop is as iconic as the TARDIS or Starship Enterprise. Some have an amusingly structuralist approach to the topic: "The DeLorean is presented as a masculine space... " (The Worlds of Back to the Future: Critical Essays on the Films); "...the DeLorean time machine the 'primary symbol of 'phallic' power'." (Liquid metal: the science fiction film reader‎). The topic is therefore notable and should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news results are plenty. [1] The creator of those cars and owner of the company that made them, said his success was because of them being used as a time machines in that movie. [2] Dream Focus 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article refers to someone else saying that this was his "claim to fame". Considering that John DeLorean's company went bankrupt three years before the movie came out, it didn't bring him any success. I think that the DeLorean DMC-12 has become an icon for time travel, and if the article can be purged of the fancruft, it's workable. I don't think that anybody actually calls it "the DeLorean time machine" however. Mandsford 12:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many source call it just that. I've added a number of possible references to the further reading section. A search through Google Books shows that the DeLorean time machine is iconic and is mentioned in a lot of sources other than film plot summaries. It's used as an exemplar fictional time machine is some non-fiction sources, along with H.G. Wells' time machine and TARDIS, and also mentioned in the same context alongside the Starship Enterprise. So it clearly has the same level of notability as these cultural icons. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a lot of in-universe cruft in the article that needs to be cleaned out, but I don't think accusations of non-notability are going to stick. SnottyWong ^talk 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Back to the Future trilogy with relevant info included in the individual films' articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far too much content for a proper merge, specially as this plot device has achieved independent notability enough for a proper WP:SPINOUT.[3][4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup trim the plot summary, keep including more real world/production/review/critical commentary details, as the searches above indicate exist, and we're just fine. The rescue in progress appears to be going well, the fictional element appears to be meeting the GNG on its own. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A classic of popular culture.AWHS (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially per SnottyWong. In the end it might be better to merge this, but there is at least a little salvageable content already in the article and no pressing need to delete the history. It certainly is a possible (if not terribly probable) redirect, if it comes to that. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural icon, totally notable... the OR could use a trim, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarastar42 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DeLorean is iconic in its own right, and there are plenty of sources available to demonstrate this. --Korruski (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An iconic plot device that has itself been well covered in detail in multiple sources.[5][6] And though WP:NOTINHERITED and been spoken of earlier, THIS plot device, even if only because of the film, now has its own sourcable notability, and thus passes both GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Per WP:ATD, cleanup is a reason to do so... and deletion is a last resort for the completely unsalvable.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 29 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.