Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibonacci numbers in popular culture

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. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fibonacci numbers in popular culture

Fibonacci numbers in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another "in popular culture" article. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to take an axe to them, not to split them out into "articles" consisting solely of cruft. Numerous precedents, let this one join its fellows in the bitbucket. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No reason for an article like this or anything similar, such as Lima beans in popular culture. --Cyrus Andiron 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Long history, since the Greeks, of Fibonacci numbers in architecture and art; see e.g. "The Geometry of Art and Life" by Matila Ghyka among others. This entry is salvageable. JJL 13:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't seem to find anything about the Greeks in this particular article. There isn't much about architecture and art either; it's all largely about films, popular novels and video games. If there are examples of real historical significance, shouldn't they rather be in the main article on Fibonacci numbers? Henrik Ebeltoft 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge back. There is information in here that transcends "cruft", especially what relates to music and architecture. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fibonacci number is long and the topic has a whole category: Category:Fibonacci numbers. The amount of information related to Fibonacci numbers makes it impractical to keep in a single article. Some of the listed popular culture entries are weak and unsourced but that is not sufficient reason to delete the whole article. And it isn't just mentions of Fibonacci numbers but also practical applications. PrimeHunter 14:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not just cruft and it's just waiting for the day that someone can turn it from a list into prose. Fibonaccis are popular in pop culture. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fannish list of every time someone says the now-fashionable word "Fibonacci!" (sort of like getting to yell Bingo!). Mangoe 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; we don't need a list of every occurence of Fibonacci numbers in films or popular culture; this just serves no purpose whatsoever. If there are examples here of real historical significance, they should be merged back into Fibonacci numbers; also, perhaps, that article could do with a couple of representative occurences of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture, to show that they are popular; but we just don't need a list of every such occurence. Henrik Ebeltoft 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic, too long to merge back. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - well structured and referenced list. The length and diversity of the list shows that the topic is notable. It was split out from the main Fibonacci number article for good reasons and should stay as a separate article. Gandalf61 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The list, like almost all such lists, is in fact almost completely lacking in references, as there are at this time only three. The short passage in the main article gives sufficient examples and gives an adequate explanation why the external list is so long. Mangoe 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The mentions of books and movies are sourced in text; there's no point in adding <ref>[[Phillip K. Dick]], ''Valis''</ref> to the existing mention of the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and prune; if we delete, this stuff will only reappear in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:You know, I wonder why we don't already have the articles: infinity in popular culture, pi in popular culture, Mõbius strips in popular culture, etc? Is there just not enough interest by Wikipedians for such articles? Or is there some reason these are different from the one under discussion? Just curious. --C S (Talk) 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This would probably shorten and improve Pi noticeably. Just lack of impetus, I guess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's listcruft, but it serves a useful purpose in helping keep the cruft out of the main article. It is in severe need of sourcing and pruning, though. —David Eppstein 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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.