Trichome

thcscience_admin
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 redirect to Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. Relevant content can be merged from the page history (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capybara Walking[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Capybara Walking (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)

I neither wish this gets deleted, nor that it doesn't; just want to run it by the community. The current sources are non-RS (IMDb and a YouTube clip), hence more and better would be needed to consolidate notability. My question is, should this have a standalone article in the first place, even if better sources could be found? According to this Wellcome Collection catalogue entry it's one of a set of 781 (!) collotypes from Muybridge's 1887 Animal locomotion publication, and it doesn't seem sensible to me to have an article on each individual one; the only one I've found so far is The Horse in Motion, others are covered in the main article on Eadweard Muybridge. In other words, essentially a question of WP:PAGEDECIDE, I guess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really a separable (or answerable) question. If it has the sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, then there is no particular reason it shouldn't have a separate page, ala The Horse in Motion, except WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that guideline depends in each individual instance on what the GNG-satisfying page looks like compared to how the same content might be integrated into another specific page. As such, 'should' can't even be addressed until 'could' is resolved so we know what an acceptable page looks like and how that specific content may look integrated elsewhere. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Agricolae: where does it say that 'could' automatically and inevitably must lead to 'should'? Genuine question, I wasn't aware of that policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it did. The established benchmark for an independent page is NOTABILITY (GNG, as demonstrated by sourcing - i.e. 'could'). I can think of two guidelines whereby a topic qualifying might be deemed better addressed without a stand-alone page ('should'). One is PAGEDECIDE, basically just 'sometimes it works better to cover two closely-related things together', and as I said, that is addressed on a case-by-case basis (and pretty much requires 'could' to already be satisfied or we won't know what we are talking about merging versus keeping separate, what proportion would be unique and what must be duplicated to have separate pages). The other, though not expressed as such, is really just a specific case of the phenomenon PAGEDECIDE covers, OVEEVENT, where if someone's entire notability is inextricably linked to a single event, then they should be addressed on the page covering that event rather than separately (unless it would make the parent page overlong), but that doesn't apply here. Other than these, the only basis for 'should' that comes to mind is the entirely subjective and invalid IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT. Agricolae (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WRT to "should": The larger set that this image is a part of is very notable, and lots of very high quality sources exist. We should have an article on Animal locomotion : An electro-photographic investigation of consecutive phases of animal movements, but not on an individual plate contained in it. Since, unfortunately, no such article exists yet, anything from that Capybara Walking article that is salvageable, which is almost nothing, can be merged into the article on Eadweard Muybridge or into The Horse in Motion. Vexations (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added sources, as probably the first film about a rodent (Walt Disney, eat your heart out), and a member of a notable series of pioneering films which are not as yet adequately covered on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know it's not a film, right? Vexations (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is The Horse in Motion but the same pioneering technique which later becomes a film when, well, filmed. Worth keeping as another example. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Horse in Motion correctly says that it is "is a series of cabinet cards" and does not claim it as the "the first film about" anything. The argument that it should be kept as "the first of " something doesn't work if it isn't that at all. Vexations (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a fanboy of historic firsts, whatever Capybara Walking is it predates most other significant rodent media by decades. Muybridge's series is important, and since there is no central article, keeping another example doesn't seem far-fetched or undue. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't base conclusions about significance on a single editor's personal say-so. We need a source that makes the observation. As to your second argument, the better way to address not having a central article about this collection is to have a central article about the collection. Agricolae (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, but until Wikipedia has one this page and Horse present the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eadweard Muybridge Edit in light of subsequent creation: Animal Locomotion. The sources added, several archive/library catalog entries, do not indicate WP:NOTABILITY - the bar is higher than simply proving something exists, which is all these do. Neither IMDB nor YouTube are WP:RS so they carry no weight whatsoever. That leaves the article with a grand total of zero instances of reliable sources providing significant coverage, a total fail of WP:GNG. (And there is no guideline that states that 'probably the first film about foo can be presumed to be notable', even if we had a reliable source saying this is what this is, which we don't. Agricolae (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not a single source is actually coverage about this clip in particular. It's one of over 700 which merely exist, with no sources specifically describing the importance of the capybara clip, just its catalog entry. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No implication about this discussion should be read into the new page linking to a target that currently exists. We generally don't adjust pages to reflect how we predict a discussion is going to turn out, we reflect the current situation, however short-lived that may be. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 26 February 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capybara_Walking

Leave a Reply