Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong 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 huh, wouldja look at that. Good work, people. Keep. DS 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong in popular culture

An unsourced cluttered and trivial list of items involving King Kong. RobJ1981 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. It seems to be spun off from the King Kong article to make that article shorter. King Kong is a cultural icon, and as such, its influence on pop culture is encyclopedic, as is the case with many other movies (and many of those do have pop culture sections or articles). The article could use cleanup and sources for sure, but it should be on Wikipedia, and the current version is a good place to start improving. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No major issues here. |Notable and sufficent WP:RS to indicate that it deserves an article of its own. Certainly needs a tidy up but seems to me that this is encyclopedic. Pedro |  Chat  09:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• How, exactly, does a mention of every reference that reminds an editor of a big monkey on a building meet notability or reliable source standards? --Calton | Talk 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {unreferenced} tag would have been sufficient for now. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as another "oh look, a big monkey!" directory of loosely associated items mixed with trivia with an unhealthy dose of original research. Seeks to capture every appearance of or reference to King Kong despite the utter triviality of many of the references along with anything that in the unsourced POV/OR opinion of the random editor who spots it reminds them of King Kong in some way. This massive list tells the reader nothing about King Kong, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about the (non-existent) relationship between the items of fiction and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto4711. One of the worst such lists I've seen. Deor 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No non-subjective reasons for deleting this have been given, and the cure for perceived "clutter", much less "triviality", is not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Given that Wikipedia policies are created by humans and not machines, there are no "non-subjective reasons" for deleting any article, so the notion that the lack of a "non-subjective reason" qualifies an article for inclusion would effectively bring AFD to a halt. Your argument does not address the policy arguments advanced by the nomination and in support of the nomination. Otto4711 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet Another batch of bullet points disguised as an article. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, does not violate any policies, well-organized, concerns a notable topic, etc., but I do agree that a reference tag would be appropriate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just a junk trivia list. And most of the keep arguments are trash anyways. We aren't debating if King Kong is notable, it is not necessary for WP to have a "page" like this. WP is not an indiscriminate list of info, and plenty of pages like this have been removed. And don't give that "the main page was too big" nonsense. It's garbage info that is not necessary anywhere on this site. Dannycali 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Prune the most trivial and indirect references and keep. Artw 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the list is not King Kong in popular culture, it's "every mention of the name King Kong that we can think of". Properly edited, there would be nothing left of it. MarkBul 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: There is nothing inherently notable about every reference in pop culture to King Kong ever, any major topics could be discussed in the main King Kong article anyway. Criteria for inclusion in this "article" seem very loose, to say the least, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. IvoShandor 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:V failures.--JForget 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not trivia collection - Merge anything major into King Kong assuming its not WP:OR Corpx 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; this is mostly indiscriminate trivia, even by "In popular culture" articles' low standards. Masaruemoto 04:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completly meaningless list of trivial references, some of which are to things just named "Kong" whether they have any reference to the original film or not. I know I'm not keen on "... In popular culture" articles, but this one deserves deletion more than most. - fchd 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please consider the following references:
  • Erb, Cynthia Marie. Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture. Wayne State University Press, 1998.
  • Gunn, Dave. "King Kong (1933)." This well-referenced article asserts, "The impact that King Kong had on the popular culture of the 1930s is one for the history books."
  • McCutcheon, Camille1. "Review of Living Dangerously: The Adventures of Merian C. Cooper, Creator of King Kong," Journal of Popular Culture 39.4 (August, 2006), 687-688.
• Thus, as you can see, it is incredibly easy to find references to King Kong and popular culture. Moreover, these sources demonstrate that such an article does NOT violate any original research policy. I strongly urge nominators for these topics to search for sources first. I urge someone to use these sources to better craft the article, but if nothing else, it is certainly a notable topic that does attract serious attention in published and internet sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Roi, the original research charge still stands. It is that by watching movies, reading novels, etc. and noting cultural references, and then putting them in an article about cultural references to King Kong we're doing original research here on Wikipedia. Using individual interpretation to produce scholarly work in the field of media studies is fine, but we're not allowed to do it on Wikipedia. The reason is that we don't possess the system of peer-review and fact-checking that reliable sources, research institutions, and academic communities have. This is a problem because cultural references to King Kong by Shredderman Rules and Full House get as much coverage as many of those 1930s references that the book you cite says is so important. I trust Dave Gunn much more to tell me where King Kong made a big cultural impact than I do a mob of Wikipedia editors who have unknown credentials in media studies, and probably didn't even examine the 1930s cultural references to begin with.--Chaser - T 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • • Perhaps a revision of the article based on secondary sources such a those that I have found would be best? We have thousands of editors and so, hopefully, someone will be up to the task!  :) Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve this giant big huge mess. :-) Bearian 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep I think the Erb and Gunn references above show unquestionable that the subject is notable. Article content is dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have given the article a quick rewrite using the sources that Le Grand Roi found (thanks!). The article now has sourced assertions of the huge influence King Kong has had on popular culture. While some of the trivia in the original article was definitely unimportant, other parts of it (eg A Summer Place, Energizer Batteries & The Simpsons) have been talked about in reliable sources and are suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Bláthnaid 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent rewrite. I think you've eliminated all the problems with the previous version.--Chaser - T 20:47, 7 September 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.