Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 - default to delete. It would be impossible to gauge a consensus that would stick, given this divided discussion. Both sides made good (and bad) arguments. Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome. However, this article is unique in that is was previously deleted, and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist. No consensus is just that - a closure that doesn't change anything, a closure that returns to the status quo. I just don't see consensus here to overturn a previous AfD decision, even if it didn't meet the strict requirements of CSD G4. (Note: this default to delete has nothing to do with BLP concerns or recent controversies.) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to no consensus, deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Human disguise

Human disguise

Human disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural relisting of a CSD G4 deletion that was overturned as a result of a discussion at deletion review. A variant of the article (Human suit) was originally deleted per this discussion at AfD. Although the history of the deletion is complex, and a history merge has been performed, these facts are not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The article has been improved since the original deletion. The original reason for deletion: "[that it is a minor] plot device with no apparent real-world notability", could still be argued, however. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Salt and then drop into the black hole at the galactic core Seriously, this page was disingenuously created to circumvent the then-active AfD on Human suit and is not even a content fork, it's a content mirror. I thought this was done with but a DrV was launched after the speedy and then closed without me ever so much as being notified! Please just delete this mess! Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page existed before hand, they just copying information over. A human disguise is better, since some of the examples mentioned aren't actually a human suit. Totally different AFD here. Dream Focus 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original one was deleted because of religious people upset by part of what was original there, and all swarming in to say delete, before the article had time to develop into what it became at the time of its unfortunately deletion. But, whatever. There are plenty of notable series that have a character who disguises themselves as a human, so its a notable enough subject matter. And I did find books mentioning it in the last AFD. Dream Focus 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Delete and salt as per the very recent AfD of the exact same article. I have nominated this for a speedy. By the way, dream focus is both wrong and offensive in his summary of the previous AfD. Having been involved at both articles I'm very annoyed that I wasn't notified about the unrepresentative DrV. This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept. This is exactly the same AfD, changing one word doesn't change the lack of RS, notability, etc. This disruptive behaviour is going too far. Everyone at the previous, same AfD should be notified and it should be linked in a box at the top as normal. Verbal chat 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was one of the main proponents of deletion and I am an Atheist. Verbal is likewise not known for a strong religious PoV (I am unaware of Verbal's personal religious convictions). Accusations that AfD was flooded by "religious" people thus demonstrably false. The original issue was the fact that the article was WP:FANCRUFT with no indicators of WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Disguise if there is any valuable information in this article to merge. Otherwise delete. Snottywong (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable. This new article is ripe for expansion. The use of human disguise by greek gods, satan, in science fiction, and biblical stories is very well established. There are plenty of sources on google books and google news discussing the significance of the meme. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're in the article and I'm trying to add more, but it's time consuming to revert your vandalism and disruption. Please stop or you will have to be blocked for the duration of the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not provided any RS that "human disguise" or "suit" is a notable concept, what you've given is WP:OR and primary sources that the term is used in books, etc - but not that it is notable. Verbal chat 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is being vandalised by Verbal including this edit removing sourced content [1]. He's welcome to make his case for deletion, but if he can't restrain himself from vandalising the article admin intervention may become necessary. Please restore the article content that he removed (after adding a speedy tag and then a bunch of other tags when that was removed by another editor). This is getting ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per above.  Btilm  22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content fork (that it's an end around on AFD is annoying, but what are you going to do?), basically original research. It isn't an encyclopedic topic; it's a coat-rack for trivia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim- there's enough for at least the material to remain. Perhaps not as a standalone article, but at least in some form. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found any critical coverage of this as a separate topic in any reliable sources. (The search was well worth doing, though, because it did throw up sources for similar topics: why don't we have articles on Gender disguise, or indeed Fictional device? Editors interested writing articles on fantasy, science fiction, or literary themes might wish to explore that further.)

    On the other hand, I agree that "Human disguise" is a recognisable literary theme and there may be room to discuss it as a subsection of a larger article, such as Fantasy tropes and conventions. Would a merge be a reasonable compromise?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gender disguise? A merge is worth considering, but keep in mind this is a new article and likely to be expanded. I think it's appropriately broad as it is, yet still coherent, but I'm pretty flexible if there's a better way to handle the subject. The fantasy article you mention focuses on aspects in fantasy writing, while this one deals more with sci-fi, cartoon animation, and religio-mythological concepts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the thing in older literature such as Shakespeare where the girl dresses up as a boy to go and seek her fortune, or in Woolf where a character swaps gender during the story.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Since this has turned from being a normal AfD into one of our regularly-scheduled battlefields between the Article Rescue Squadron and the Article Extermination Squadron, and there is now no hope whatsoever of a good-faith debate about sources, I have stricken my remark and wish to bow out of the whole matter. Regardless of how this is closed, I look forward to seeing it at DRV shortly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite simply not true. Science fiction writer and critic Stanisław Lem often depicted aliens as incomprehensible and was critical of other writers who simply depicted aliens as humans in disguise. Gary Westfahl, a prolific science fiction writer and critic who does not yet have an article, discusses it a bit in an article here [2]. This is a very well established trope. This is a very new article, so it's not surprising that it's taking time to developa dn is starting out by picking the low hanging fruit: noting from reliable sources where this plot device and theme has been used. A reasonable discussion of the name and how best to handle the content is fine. But frankly, the rush to an AfD hasn't provided much time to properly develop the article. The idea that no one has ever discussed this type of plot device is silly and some of the cites in the aritcle already show that it has been discussed in relation to cold-war themes, feminism, science fiction writing, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's correct and added to an already existing discussion of this article, at an appropriate noticeboard. You've already taken this to ANI and been smacked down for it, so stop peddeling this disruptive line please. Verbal chat 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They walk amongst us! Messy article, but it seems to cover a theme that recurs sufficiently to justify an article and could be whipped into shape (I'm adding Rescue accordingly). Artw (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Besides picking up the human suit article, the rest of this is just a list of every random thing that ever appeared in any context in the guise of a human being. I see no possibility of anything non-trivial or unobvious being said. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a recurring theme in multiple notable works of fiction and the like. I do like Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) suggestion of turning it into a list, but not outright deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is original research it is. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google News search reveals 17 pages of articles that use the exact term "human disguise". I have not gone through all of them, but there is at least two New York Time articles, one mentioning the device in science fiction, and another in fable/legend. Seems like reliable sourcing is out there, unlike for the more alien term "human suit". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The section "In religion and mythology" (which does not seem unrepresentative) is an irrelevant and fanciful bit of artificial knowledge that could not exist anywhere by any means other than desperate Googling to sustain a Wikipedia entry's notability. It is thus WP:SYN at best, and the rest of the article has been put together by the same method. Even a couple of academic lit crit articles on the motif would not make it a notable subject (they would just provide a couple of footnotable sentences for an article on a notable subject like Literary representations of the human form or some such). Wareh (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is well sourced now and it's a notable topic with plenty of room for expansion. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an article, but a list, and one that interprets "human disguise" so broadly that this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Besides which it's simply misleading--an article that claims that the Greek gods in the Iliad are doing something similar to the aliens of Men in Black is peddling nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one or two sentences from the first paragraph may be reasonable to merge into the disguise article. The rest of this is a list of trivia, and the article serves no purpose other than collecting more trivia entries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to me like a prosified list of examples... an encyclopedia article should explain a topic, discuss it meaningfully, summarize published opinions on the topic... I don't really like the idea of an article that can do nothing but list 50 examples of the topic, and not talk about what it actually means. That's just trivia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not a real unifying article, just a grab bag of examples. Not a notable enough idea to warrant an article of its own. Auntie E. 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt this quite obvious end-run around WP:CSD#G4, and we need to start thinking about sanctions for stuff like this. Black Kite 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: still no indication that a coherent topic exists without editor WP:SYNTH to create it. Article consists entirely of stringing together WP:PRIMARY sources with the occasional secondary source clearly using the word pair in their ordinary English meaning not as a term of art (e.g. "invisible or in some human disguise"[3]). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and sources - Some sources which actually talk about it as a subject, and thus do not require OR and synthesis to make a subject from: "Alien invaders in the movies tend to fall into two types. There are monsters from outer space ("The War of the Worlds," the forthcoming "Independence Day") and infiltrators ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers") who slip in using human disguise"[4] and "The Pagan deities often assumed a human disguise; and, when angels appeared to the Jews, it was always as men"[5] In these sources, instead of simple having examples and making up the subject, the subject itself is discussed. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on lack of sources: bare use of the word combination "human disguise" in a very few sources does not amount to "significant coverage" (it is "trivial" coverage as that word is defined in WP:NOTE). Where are the sources that discuss (in something even resembling depth) the significance, history, etc, etc of 'human disguises' in literature? It appears that there aren't any -- therefore there should not be an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that, without sources really exploring this concept as a literary theme, it's just a pile of trivia in disguise. The current "in criticism" paragraph is completely off-topic; the quote is not about aliens literally disguised as humans, it's about fictional aliens that act too human because of a failure of imagination on the author's part, a very different thing. Everything else should get cut from the article as being primary-sourced trivia, but then there'd be nothing left. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As a broad theme in literature, film, and television, I'd think it's clearly notable. Gods, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, and robots (Disneyland animatronics), and even other human beings (e.g. Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or the Mission Impossible crew) have worn human disguises. It's an unsettling topic that asks uncomfortable questions about how we know whether someone's really a human being, even what it means to be a human being. Whether the article's going to be done well or not is a separate matter, but surely it should exist. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt pure original research, unnotable topic, and trivia, and already deleted once. This recreate and rename should not fly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sizzle Flambé. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised keep. I wasn't expecting to want to keep this article, but looking at it in its current state, it already makes a reasonable claim that this is a notable concept. There are plenty of instances in fiction and mythology of gods, supernatural creatures and aliens that masquerade as human; arguably enough to say that it is a trope worthy of having an article about. There are issues with original research here, but it should be possible to find third-party sources that discuss this concept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, like Robofish above, was surprised at my thoughts here, although obviously for different reasons. This is an extremely popular meme, as the article notes, and is all over the place. However, that is all the article notes, and therein lies the issue. Every (or nearly every) source only proves that this exists and is used, but I didn't see a single source that was actually covering the topic of human disguises. Notability requirements are for coverage in third-party sources, not mentions. I have not seen nor can see a source that is itself about human disguises/suits, and that leads me here to delete. Being a popular concept in media is grounds for inclusion in TVTropes, not here. Barring evidence of coverage and discussion of the actual subject, this article is essentially one giant "In popular culture" section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, per Snottywong's suggestion: I don't have a strong opinion on the subject matter, but as an article, it's fine. Snottywong might be onto something though that it would be more appropriate if merged with "Disguise".--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We could call this an "article disguise." It's a fairly random list disguised as an article. But the disguise is thin indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I liked the "Human suit" title. I consider the work that has gone into this article since it was first deleted under the other name, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in reliable sources and many books (Who didn't actually look?). The article will benefit from continued expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, whether Juman suit, Human disguise, etc., is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. What can be improved through normal editing does not belong at AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: yes I "looked" (I even quoted one in my 'delete' opinion). The "work" that "has gone into this article" was part of the basis for my opinion. The reliable irrelevant sources and 'much fluff' does not support notability (search results are no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- that requires citing specific sources whose reliability and depth of coverage can be assessed). Mere "use" does not equate to "significant coverage". I recognise the article's "delightful potential", which I why I would like to see it removed as expeditiously as possible. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice that you looked. Other editors have looked and formed opinions quite the opposite of yours. That the original nominator of the previous article finds his concerns addressed speaks volumes [6]. The beauty of community is that we do not all have to agree. I do not expect you to agree with me... and I will respectfully disagree with you. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability of this concept has not been established. Some of the examples listed are clearly notable but there is no indication that reliable sources have discussed these examples in terms of the more general concept. Our inclusion of them is a breach of WP:NOR. The manner in which this page was created, and the technicality through which DRV overturned the speedy deletion is a more general problem that must be fixed. This was a clear end run around an ongoing AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content. Certainly, it could use more work, but as discussed at the DRV its creation was not technically a violation. This article is much larger and better sourced now than the human suit article I nominated for AfD was at that time. It touches on what makes humans different from other animals and ways that distinction has been imitated and treated in various ways in fiction, religion, myth, philosophy, and movies based on them. I would suggest mention of The Stepford Wives, which uses a human disguise as a major plot device. Merging to disguise or human and conversion to a list are both ideas with merit, but I think it's somewhat beyond a list at this point.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge of the few bits that would fit into disguise. We actually had consensus for that and the process had started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? If it the article is kept, don't "merge" a small token bit over to another article, and then delete the rest. We could perhaps make an article called List of non-humans that have impersonated humans, or something of that sort, for the bulk of information, and just have a short description of a human disguise here. Dream Focus 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source for such a list would have to be something other than the current article, in order to avoid very idiosyncratic (WP:OR) or incorrect content. To source the inclusion of the individual items on such a list would mean finding reputable secondary sources that clearly put each item within the context of a recognized category. Even if such a category has a meager existence, the present article goes well-beyond any recognized topic of WP:RS discussion and simply does not correspond to its contents, but rather includes items willy-nilly based on personal criteria or Google gleanings (WP:OR). Wareh (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and dont merge. Stunning rescue work by Child of Midnight and Dream Focus. This is shaping up to be a most excellent article. As an amateur classist Ive read the Iliad several times, along with some of the best regarded commentary by Bespaloff and Weil. But Id never worked out how someone like Diomedes was able to wound several gods – hes not even as good a fighter as Achilles. It makes so much more sense now I know he was just damaging their human suits! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt - blatant effort to circumvent the normal deletion review process. This is the same old article, just as unencyclopedic as ever, if not worse; and this kind of attempted end run is violative of process as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to make a good argument that this article was created in circumvention of the normal deletion review process since it was recreated following a deletion review. Perhaps you've been misled by Verbal's canvassing and distortions? Is there a different deletion review process you wanted it to go through? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this whole situation when it was at DRV, and it honestly seemed like the closest thing to a bad faith action was the G4 speedy deletion that prompted the DRV. I want this article deleted, but at least its proponents seem to be operating within the rules. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't see a problem with a cut-and-paste move (not allowed) while an AfD, which is clearly heading for delete, is in progress? The starting a DrV on that illegitimate copy rather than a request to restore and rename the original article? And the DrV didn't even get input from those involved on either article? I see several problems with that. Verbal chat 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted based on the AFD which hadn't even been closed yet, that was never disputed in the DRV. DRV isn't required to get input from any particular group beyond the people who happen to show up for the DRV. Perhaps I shouldn't have cleared CoM of any questionable actions, but the deletion of the article he started was very problematic, especially as the person who made the deletion apparently never explained it. There was a lot of confusion. I'll assume good faith and say it was confusion all around. If there's more "confusion" and it leads to a third AFD in the near future, I'll start to think maybe there's some circumvention going on... but I don't see the need for jumping to any conclusions just yet. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very well researched article. I am very concerned by the many "usual" bad faith comments in this AFD also, "which [should be] ignored" by the closing admin. Ikip (talk)
    • Do you have RS that establish notability of the concept (significant coverage of the concept in third party sources?), and do you have any rebuttals to the delete arguments, and do you have any policy reasons for keep? This is not a vote - as you often tell others. "Well researched" is blatantly unsupportable. Verbal chat 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE That the article has got worse since the AfD started, with many unsupported sections and sections that are not supported by RS, such as blogs or primary sources. Editors are resistive to any change or discussion, and are arguing that their OR trumps wikipedia policy. Verbal chat 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I DISAGREE and suggets that editors take a look at the articles history to see for themselves rather than taking Verbals word for this. Also the all-caps is very silly. Artw (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a collection of film and book trivia with little to no encyclopedic value at all - mostly seems to be made up by the editors. As has been said above, the notability of this concept has not been establsihed at all. --Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excellent article; insufficient reason to delete. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

I just want to remind everyone that AfD is not the place to discuss whether an article is good or bad - those are (personal) opinions and should not impact an article's status. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I thought that this subject might be covered in the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy but can find nothing there. I have asked User:DeafMan aks David Langford whether the new edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction will cover it.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i had suggested content be changed to a list format, and retitled. while someone could someday make a nice simple list of fictional nonhuman characters or mythological nonhuman characters disguised as humans, this article is so overwhelmingly original research as to be impossible to fix. to keep this article, we would need multiple, secondary sources commenting on primary sources that discuss in depth the idea of "human disguise" across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here. its been said before: this is not a place to publish your ideas, no matter how interesting (and this could very well be the core of an excellent essay or book). I even think my attempts at fleshing out Aliteracy could be considered OR (and would not be offended if it was afd'd, though i would be sad of course), as i progress in my understanding of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, especially "across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here." Without that, the topic this article's on is an WP:OR invention of the article's author. Wareh (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you've set up a catch-22. When it's a mere list, it's objected to on the basis that it's just a list; when it discusses some of the examples, and gives sources, the objection is that it synthesizes the material into a discussion. And now you object because it isn't a complete discussion--a standard few Wikipedia articles can meet What the actual article is is essentially a list in paragraph format, with supporting references.I am really a little puzzled by all this, since i think it's a fairly good article--certainly a fairly good one as a basis of further improvment, which is all that is asked for. This is not a FA discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any "List of..." article, in order to belong in the encyclopedia, should be a list of phenomena in a category that has been recognized by reliable sources. I do not think a list has to be complete--it can be a tiny work-in-progress sliver of a larger category. What I do think is that the larger category has to demonstrably exist in the scholarly/reliable-source world. So, for example, this article includes the Iliad, not because its gods have ever been considered by a reliable source to be part of a wider category of human disguises, but because the editor liked the idea of human disguises and googled for disparate uses of certain phrases which no reliable source has ever related to each other. That's what makes it WP:OR: the category itself of "human disguise" (defined so broadly as to include the various subject matter of the article) is an invention of the author, and no reliable source can be produced that defines it with the same scope. When a commenter below says, "I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies," in justifying a keep vote, to me that underlines the rationale for my delete vote: the fact that you or I, as a consumer of pop culture, have noticed something apparently connected within certain boundaries, does not make it a WP:RS-supported object of knowledge. Wareh (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've re-added the Not a ballot hat, as removed by Verbal. There is sufficient psuedo-canvasing (or posisbly actual canvasing), disruptive editing, groundlerss accusations of policy breaches, non-policy reasons given for deletion, weord all-caps outbursts etc here and on related pages that I would assume the reason for it's presence is pretty self explanatory. Artw (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article covers a recurring literary theme/device that is notable and well-sourced. The active canvasing by Verbal (as linked by Artw above) and the disruptive editing by the same user, deleting valid sourced references added by ChildofMidnight, are especially disturbing. Such actions create the appearance that AfD is viewed as a competition or that there is some personal grudge-match going on. This is not how an AfD discussion should be handled. I suggest that the closing admin disregard votes cast by individuals canvased by Verbal. Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I've tried to get Cbl62 to justify these accusations against me, and further discuss them, but he doesn't seem interested in either justifying them or refactoring the above personal attacks. Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Note. Quite to the contrary, I did provide justification for my comments and engaged in a lengthy discussion of the point on Verbal's talk page. As is his right, he chose to delete the discussion. The following diff], as cited by Artw above, appears to me to be canvasing. Indeed, in this recent diff, even Verbal conceded that: "Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing." I have also expressed to Verbal my concerns with his removal of referenced edits by ChildofMidnight. I have further raised with Verbal the issue of his having thrice reverted the "not a ballot" template from this discussion. See here, here, and here. I have no desire to antagonize Verbal or pick a fight, but the manner in which this AfD discussion has been handled suggests that a lot of personal "ego" is being attached to winning or losing the debate. I think it would be a good idea for all involved to take a deep breath and let the process run its course. The differing camps obviously feel strongly about the way the AfD has been handled, and things undoubtedly could have been handled better by both sides. I urge all involved to put "ego" aside. I have no stake in the article, have never edited it, and have no connection with it. Based on my read, it looks like a solid start on a notable topic. We can have differences of opinion, but let's keep things civil and lower the volume of the rhetoric. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is notable, can you please provide WP:RS for the topic, as that would end a lot of the discussion here. As to the "lengthy discussion", it was very short and you refused to justify your attacks. I'm fine for the AfD to run it's course, but using ad-homs and false and unjustified accusations of canvassing and vandalism are not hallmarks of grown up debate, and present an untrue picture of events. Artw reported me to ANI for what he calls "canvassing", but his interpretation was roundly rejected. Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the notability of the article is sufficiently established by the references in the article. This is a recurring theme in, among other places, classical literature, mythology and science fiction. You disagree. Not so unusual. We are entitled to have different opinions. As for accusing you of "vandalism," this is simply untrue. I made no such accusation and ask you to point to a diff supporting the statement. Also, I cannot find the ANI discussion where you assert that Artw's canvasing interpretation was "roundly rejected." Could you provide a link so that I may consider the comments made there? Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl's reply is also misleading, the conversation was on his talk page, and he kept editwarring it onto my talk page- leading to a 3RR warning. He removed the short conversation after the warning was given (by an uninvolved party) and I had requested calm. I gave several pointers to policy, and asked which I had broken with specificity. He refused to discuss, so I asked for the comments to either be refactored or removed. He still refuses. Verbal chat 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Verbal. Stop this. I have not accused you of "vandalism," as you assert above. Nor have I engaged in edit-warring, as you also assert. I simply have a different point of view on this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed, but Verbal has actually now reverted the "not a ballot" template for a fourth time. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)

I've self reverted, but I'd still like the tag to be justified on the talk page.Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says WP isn't the place for "plot-only description of fictional works." Similarly, I don't think that it's the place for an indiscriminate list, derived from otherwise-unrelated fiction & non-fiction works, just because all contain a common reference to a gimmick (minor in most, major in some). If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... since this is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, your arguments puzzle me. I am confused by your declaring this article as an indiscriminate list,when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources, I am further puzzled by your summation that we might wait for a future when all sources must deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That is not what WP:N states. That is not what WP:V mandates. That is not what WP:RS guides. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it is substantively a "plot-only description of a fictional work" (sprinkled with a few bare-mentions in secondary sources), the argument would appear cogent. The "future" in question is one where "significant coverage" (not bare mention) is found in third-party sources. For the coverage to be "significant" it will, of necessity, have to include some in depth discussion of the device/motif of a 'human disguise' for a non-human. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to your opinion, the argument is not cogent, which is why I posed my puzzlement to User:DoriSmith... but not to you User:Hrafn. Your opinions have repeatedly been made quite clear. User:DoriSmith above declared this as a plot-only description of a fictional work, and yet did not state the fictional work of which it was felt to be a plot-only description. IUser:DoriSmith above declared the article as an indiscriminate list, when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. User:DoriSmith suggested we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That suggestion is contrary to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:WIP. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources... sources which deal with the subjects of the article in a more-than-trivial fashion, your continuing to claim they haven't or that they are all bare mentions is not helpful. And unless User:DoriSmith is an alternate account of yours, perhaps you'll please let the editor then speak for themselves should they wish. Cheers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MichaelQSchmidt, maybe you should try taking a look at what I actually wrote, and maybe then what I said would become more clear. For instance:
    • I did NOT "[declare] this as a plot-only description of a fictional work""—what I said was that, to me, this article has similar issues to those that are covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see the word "similarly" up above?). I believe that if a single plot-only description of a fictional work isn't allowed, then grouping several of them together into a single article (via WP:SYNTH or WP:OR) should, similarly, not be allowed either.
    • I never said, "we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail"—again, you've misrepresented what I did write, which may be why you're having trouble understanding it. What I wrote was "If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article"—that is, if/when multiple reliable secondary sources all publish something on the subject, then at that point we'll have resources with which to write an article.
    • My perception of your rebuttal is that you're saying my policy-based belief that articles require sources that cover the concept itself is incorrect/inappropriate/inapplicable/inflated and that the article does have multiple reliable published sources. Which is it? It can't be both, as they contradict each other.
    • As to "indiscriminate": "mythology, religion, science fiction, and cartoon animations" (along with metaphors, comic books, television shows, fantasy, non-animated cartoon characters, and video games, all mentioned later) involving "gods, angels, Satan, demons, monsters, robots, or aliens" (along with lemurs, fairies, and mermaids, mentioned later)—honestly, I think "indiscriminate" is a reasonable description.
    • Additionally, some of the article is just plain nonsense, e.g., "Recently New Frontier returned to the cold war theme, using the character of the Martian Manhunter"—explain, please, how the 1961-1963 Kennedy administration (which is what the "New Frontier" article, linked to, is about) is either "recent," or is a "return to the cold war theme"? How about what JFK had to do in general with the Martian Manhunter?
    • Please, try to stay civil and focus on improving either your arguments or the article. Apparently, you skimmed what I wrote and then attacked the subsequent strawman. Hrafn simply noted that, at the least, he was able to understand my point where (as you stated yourself) you could not. Accusing one of us of being a sockpuppet of the other solely because their reading comprehension is above yours is not a case of assuming good faith. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a notable phenomenon in pop culture. I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies, and it isn't just for some obscure sci-fi films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan321 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2009
  • Delete Coatrack article, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I've never seen such a disjointed collection on this subject except here. Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. Also, bar one word that has changed, meets CSD G4 criterion.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure original research. Laundry list of unrelated fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, and hunt down and destroy any zombies formed from its corpse This is really an inadequately stealthy attempt to recreate the human suit article, but ignoring that, it's still worthy of deletion. There is no effort whatsoever to identify this as a literary trope that anyone cares about; it's a list of examples for which there is no article. And probably the reason there is no article (besides the aforementioned attempt to recreate deleted material-- i.e., the author didn't care) is that the notion of disguise is so basic that there is nothing notable you can say about it that isn't either said under disguise itself or in any more specific article (e.g. avatar and incarnation). Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page provides good information on a genre of literature that is all too common (especially in recent years). Im suprised such an article hasnt been done sooner. Id like to see more contribution to this page to help improve it, but the topic should certainly be kept and expanded. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have some WP:RS that show this concept meets WP:GNG? Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't collected sources no, although i have no doubt you could easily find some. The topic of demons, angels and similar taking human form is a very well established genre. Shows like "Touched by an Angel" and dozens of similar modern literature or tv shows not to mention the thousands of different literature going back thousands of years all centering around this topic. It is not just a passing side note in some literature but rather a central device in more literature/tv than i could ever hope to mention. To me there isn't much doubt regarding its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeo Morium (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble is I and other editors have not been able to find any sources that show this topic passes the WP:GNG; they have not been easily found despite efforts. Which part of which notability guideline do you think is met? Verbal chat 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the problem here is that your looking for papers titles "Human Disguise" or similar (perhaps a rename of the page is in order?). My searching on google has shown much literature of course regarding this genre. but the question is if there are reliable sources that address this topic in literature. While i doubt youll find a paper by the above title there is a great deal of sources which talk about the various literature within this genre. Often times as a side note they may make reference specifically to the aspect of "human in disguise" (usually not by that name). I think its just one of those topics you need more eyes on to really get a good set of sources going and bring it up to wikipedia standards. I don't doubt much that the notability exists and the guidelines can be satisfied if the right attention is given. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think what Verbal is looking for is any work of analysis (a thesis, of at least minimal notability) that dwell on the subject specifically, instead of just mentioning it in passing. I have also looked for this, and have come up empty. As per WP:NOR we are not allowed to create our own analyses of primary literature, and all the refs I've seen so far are primary sources. There's the problem. Hope this helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • My understanding of the guideline is that a paper where this is the main topic isn't needed for the subject to be notable. It needs to be more than a trivial reference in a single paper, sure, but it doesn't need to be a whole paper on the topic.. to quote WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From what i can tell this will easily be met. Ultimately i don't plan to get in there and do all the research and edit the article. This is just my assessment of the topic. I wouldn't be surprised the more eyes you get on this the more reliable the sources you find will be. The hard part here is finding the sources which are more likely to refrence this topic even if the paper itself isn't specifically about it as a whole. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The alien section is the only section of this article that I have worked on to any great extent, and where possible I have used sources that establish aliens in human disguise as a common theme in SF. I beleive we have good coverage there, and should the article be deleted I will be attempting either to roll the work there into Infiltration section of the Alien Invasion article or create a spin off article. However I don't see any reason why the other sections could not be sourced similarly, and may they may already be so - I haven't been keeping up to date on the latest updates outside of the aliens section. At any rate, the claim that the article consists only of examples and that there are no sources establishing themes are false at least for that section. Artw (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Could you describe how your additions were appropriate to an article named "Human disguise" as opposed to "List of times thing that were not human were disguised as human?" IE - how are you not synthesising a list of times something happened to an article about how those things are connected? Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Synthesis would be combing material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources - the alien section most certainly does not do that since the thematic link is explicitly stated. What certainly could be improved within the article, which at present is a bit laundry-list-ish, is the discussion and sourcing of the theme as a whole across the various sections. It's not there yet, but theres no reason to believe that the article can't be improved in that direction, but article writing and researching sources proceeds at a slower pace than, say, wiki-lawyering or article disruption. Artw (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your case would be more convincing if you could find sources that discuss more than one instance at a time, therefore establishing the theme. Otherwise, this is OR. --Ramdrake (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, there are sources in the article that do that. In particular I would look at the two sources I just added, both of which examine disguise as a theme in fnatastic literature.[7]

[8] Artw (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's still not it. These are just mentions in passing. It fails "significant coverage", and represents only one source.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think possibly you're getting your notability guidelinbes and your OR guidelines mixed up. That and also being deliberately obtuse. Artw (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:NOTE: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (emphasis mine). I wouldn't argue that your references provide "significant" coverage, now do they? Also, could we please skip the ad homs?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Id like to reiterate my earlier quote from WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The resources already added seems to cover significant coverage to me. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is where we disagree: I don't see a source providing significant coverage of this subject as a theme. Yes, there are primary sources that mention it, and secondary sources which also mention it in passing, but no source so far which does what WP:NOTE requires.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • A fuller quote from the first reference there: "Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other: a red-dyed John carter impersonates a martian in Edgar Rice Burroughs ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human. In Ray Bradbury's The Martian Cronicles, Martians employ psychic powers to masquerade as Americans, while The Man Who Fell to Earth uses contact lenses and a mask. The ability of The Thing (1982) to appear human leads to paranoia, which is also behind the testing of robots if The Terminator and the androids in Blade Runner. Fears about being unable to identify the Other are gender-inflected in Stanislaw Lem's "The Mask" (1977)" - That would appear to be some not insignificant coverage of a theme. It's certainly not "in passing". Artw (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The second reference I gave there, BTW, is pretty much a survey of secret identies, and starts with gods in disguise and covers dopplegangers, the non-human superhero Superman and science-fictional shapeshifters. Again, this is not trivial coverage or in passing. Artw (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the new references are fine and dandy, and there are no doubts dozens more around. But any attempt to gather them together without a Reliable Source is Synthesis. The article is in a sense an attempt to create a neologism, and we don't do that here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure synthesis. No reliable source adresses the topic as a whole, making the article Wikipedian editors original synthesis, as opposed to a real article. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Topic" that exists only as an unsourced synthesis based on individual instances (and, in a number of cases, on a poor understanding of those instances). Deor (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As outright redlinking is always an extreme last resort that no one prefers, this article as titled could be a reasonable spelling for some searching for an article on say this book and as such has at least redirectable benefits as a blue link. After all, I frequently type lower case items in the search bar which take me to funkytown the article I am searching for. In any event, as far as human diguises go, I am looking forward to V (2009 TV series) this week! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure, writers have made up stories about aliens etc. disguised as humans. And with six billion people on the planet, there are articles/books that use the words "human disguise". However, there is no secondary source that bothers to discuss this topic as a topic. Angels in human disguise, monsters in human disguise, robots in human disguise – but no WP:RS discusses the topic of "human disguise". The article is WP:SYNTH. If the supporters of the article really want it, please change it to a "List of..." and just list the examples with links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it boils down to "these things that use a human body as a disguise" but then veers off in so many directions that the article makes little sense, and is heavy on the synth. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary Source City Three secondary sources have been added which deal with this topic in a non trivial way, and three more have been placed on the talk page for possible future integration. Three of these are near the top of our RS hierarchy as they're from University Presses . Angels and demons: what do we really know about them? for example has two pages of discussion focussing on Angel's human disguise , with proper reference to scripture. Several of the sources are largely focused on the human disguise aspect as can be seen from the titles, e.g. Human Animals: Werewolves & Other Transformations. I encourage all open minded editors who have voted delete to re-evaluate. There's hopefully no question that the many sources now establish this article is notable by any reasonable interpretation of our policies. About the only remaining valid argument is synth, specifically that no secondary source addresses the topic with the same breath of coverage as this article. But its part of an encyclopaedias function to collate different secondary sources, so naturally we are going to have a wider scope than any one source. This is part of the reason why reliable sources acknowledge we sometimes have the best available article on certain subjects. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary source ghost town: these sources provide only bare mention of the concept of human disguise, in discussing related topics. No "significant coverage", no detailed treatment of the topic. Reaffirm 'delete' opinion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary Source Ghost Busted! The bare mention criticism only seems to apply to the Brothers and Beasts: An Anthology of Men on Fairy Tales source used for Kitsune and there seem to be sources in the Kitsune article that treat the human disguise concept in more detail. If youd like to chose one out of Angels and demons: what do we really know about them or Retrofitting Blade Runner or The History of the Supernatural then when Im back online tommorow I'll try to illustrate in detail how the coverage is non trivial , with quotes that you should be able to verify from google books! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_disguise&oldid=1142545777"