Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture

From 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 keep. I have been bold liberty as I believe this qualifies as a proper closure per WP:DPR#NAC. The delete arguments have mostly advocated a back-merge or talked about the lack of sources. The lack of sources can be fixed, and in fact I am going to remove any problematic entries (e.g., the Kirk Cobain one), and suggest people participating in this debate, especially ones calling for keep, make an effort to work on third party sources. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminati in popular culture

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

Detached trivia section consisting of basically every time the word "Illuminati" has been mentioned on a movie, TV show, or other work of modern fiction. There are no reliable third-party sources cited for any of these entries. *** Crotalus *** 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Many of these entries don't need references because there are blue links and the association is obvious, e.g. the Illuminatus trilogy. I myself am quite interested in this topic and frequently play the game. You just need to look at a dollar bill or see a movie like National Treasure to understand the pervasiveness of this amusing concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia's "In popular culture" category articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. Help that effort to make it an even better pop culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if you were editing Wikipedia in 2003, you would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, "There is an urban legend that Kurt Cobain was an enemy of the Illuminati, and they were the ones to kill him. People say you can hear messages about the Illuminati in the song Smells Like Teen Spirit when played backwards". Does more need to be said? 99% of this is unsubstantiated trivial rubbish. Lankiveil (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as failing reliable third-party sources. Every little trivia entry needs to have a footnote in a reference section at the end of the article if it is ever going to be anything like encyclopedic. Sting_au Talk 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Merge – Why not just merge into Illuminati under a subheading. Shoessss |  Chat  13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That's where the article started before it was spun off. Flip-flopping is not constructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – Based on Colonel Warden (talk) articulations. Like the Colonel, I find the subject fascinating. This piece does offer a contribution in broadening the knowledge, be it Pop Culture, or actual fact. Well researched and referenced. By the way, thank you for pointing out the spin-off. Shoessss |  Chat  14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lack of sourcing is only a valid deletion reason if sourcing doesn't exist. I don't think this has been demonstrated in this case. Much of this content is plot summary, which doesn't require a secondary source anyway. The article has problems, but these are problems that need to be addressed by editing the article to provide real world context in addition to the plot summary it already contains. AfD isn't cleanup. Rray (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Though most ipc articles do tend to be "lists of every time ____ was mentioned", that's not the case here. Let's be fair. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this well organized and notable article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I agree that some of this content may be subject to a reality check (and then removed), the Illuminati are the most widely known "secret" organization, and thus there has been a great deal of speculation/legend/atmopsphere around them. A list like this that documents their lasting impression on popular culture demonstrates their continued significance, regardless of wither they even exist or not. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I there are BS or rumor-mill examples, then remove them. Otherwise the Illuminati have been pervasive enough in popular culture - the subject of many books, films, and notable conspiracy theories - that an article of this nature is justified. It just needs to be vetted, is all. 23skidoo (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Make subheading of Illuminati page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSims (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable topic. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful back in to the main Illuminati article. - fchd (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per its influence in books, TV, and games. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs a drastic rewrite to discuss the actual topic and how it developed, etc... rather then just being a list.--Him and a dog 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit--the discussion at this afd is more illuminating fuller than in the article. DGG (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (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.