Talk:The Death Cure

Untitled

The Death Cure is about a boy named Thomas and his friends trying blah blah blah, get to the point! Actually, don't, because SPOILER ALERT: Teresa and Newt DIE!!!50.255.6.65 (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.208.43 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete by Qworty

{{help me}} How do you agree/disagree with this delete http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Death_Cure&diff=552106630&oldid=552094863 by Qworty

My answer: No. Because:

citation needed should be mentioned first

the article would become almost nothing.

Thank you for your contribution New worl (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:V and stop adding material that has no sourcing. Unsourced material may be removed from Wikipedia at any time--that is Wikipedia policy. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you want to add something, please make sure you are sourcing it with WP:RS. Thanks! Qworty (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you put citation needed first? New worl (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not my WP:BURDEN. Unsourced material can be removed at any time. That is policy. Qworty (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I can undo yours so that other willing people will help. Is my understanding correct? New worl (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No. You need to have WP:RS for the stuff you want to add. Also, you are proposing an WP:EDITWAR, which can get you blocked. You'd better be careful and follow policy. Also please have a look at WP:OWN. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I can quote for you from Burden of evidence: Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step...

I object your deletions!

You keep using the word policy. But you use policy not in a good way, at least in this article.New worl (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any sources for the material that you insist belongs here. I'm not going to place a tag requesting sources that do not exist. If they are indeed out there, and you know of them, why don't you add them yourself? If you don't know of any sources, and they don't exist, then this entire conversation is a waste of time and the material definitely doesn't belong in the article. And, mind you, all sources must be WP:RS. That is policy. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If you or I cannot add now, other people will help. If you delete now how can they know that the help is needed? What are the strengths of Wikipedia? So I still object your deletions which delete contents, and more importantly users' morale. New worl (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there. I've taken a look at the discussion, and here's what I've found: All material in Wikipedia must be sourced using an inline citation. The editor who inserts the information is responsible for including that citation. Any material that does not include a citation is subject to immediate removal. It is often considered courteous for an editor to include a "citation needed" tag before removing uncited material, but editors are free to delete uncited material without tagging first. You are free to object to the deletions, but you are not free to revert them. To allay the concerns of New worl, I would note that there are more effective ways of communicating the need for help on an article. I would start by adding a stub tag to the article to let people know there's a new article that needs to be filled out. If editors choose to help out, they'll also be able to go into the edit history and find the material that was deleted, and they'll be able to restore it if they have sources that they can cite. New worl: It sounds like you are trying to make valuable contributions, so I hope you'll try some other options here. As Qworty said, continuing to make those reversions will get you blocked, and then you would not be able to contribute. If I can provide any more help, let me know. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Bdb484 (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bdb484 very much. I just want to add a point: Not many editors, including me some days ago, know about stub tag's application. On the contrary many more editors will know right from the article about "citation needed" tag.

New worl (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The sort-of good news is that because the article doesn't have any reliable sources, citations are still needed. So even though that information was deleted, we can post a citation-needed tag and it will continue to attract the same amount of attention.

I'll put the tag up. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bdb484. New worl (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that New worl asked on my talk page for my input in this (but I don't think that I have any connection to that user otherwise). I don't think that there is a major problem with sourcing for this article, given that all of New worl's additions come from the book itself. I think the bigger problem is that the article needs an out-of-universe perspective that is about publication history, critical reception, sales stats, and themes (if discussed in reliable sources) rather than just about the content of the book itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all a lot. I learned that communication amongst editors is very important for effective editing. New worl (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the book itself should implicitly be considered an adequate source to verify statements about what is written in the book. However, a bigger problem is that no reliable sources are cited to show that this is a notable book. Perhaps the book is simply not notable and the article should simply be deleted. Also please see WP:PLOT and WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please scratch that remark about notability. I just read the "Reception" section of the article. There seems to be sufficient evidence of noteworthiness, but proper citations to these sources should be added. Also, the article needs substantial improvement in its general writing style and editorial quality. The plot summary is one huge paragraph (probably with excessive detail). The "Reception" section is poorly punctuated – it looks like it might be cut-and-paste. The synopsis and plot summary are incomprehensible to someone who isn't already familiar with the content of the book series. Wikilinking is needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)