Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number of the Beast (occurrence)

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 delete. --Coredesat 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the Beast (occurrence)

Number of the Beast (occurrence) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completely unsourced list of occasions someone has used the number 666. This is listcruft and unencyclopedic. We don't need "popular culture references" sections in every article. B 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I recall this used to be a part of the Number of the Beast article, so I'm guessing it has grown out of proportion until it weighed on the article so heavily an editor decided to split it off. I can't see how any sort of useful or encyclopedic article will result from this information being walled off here so I vote to delete rewrite and merge; The original article has a "Culture and Significance" heading just waiting for a rewrite salvaging the best of the content here and ignoring the rest. --AceMyth 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete delete delete (Delete has six letters in it, get it?) Like Ace, I can't see anything encylopedic about someone else's mark of the beast imitation. These aren't occurrences, they're all planned. Mandsford 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as trivia list. "This article covers trivia and other items involving the Number of the Beast". Note how the lead also says "Many of these items are unverified". Punkmorten 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've revised the lead sentence and format of the article some, but please do add more sources. The topic can be encyclopedic if improved. I'll do a quick source search after I post this message. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft is one way to put it, but for those who are just now tuning in, this is a list of loosely associated trivia of the non-encyclopedic type, violating the very core of our WP:FIVE pillars and should be removed. Burntsauce 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NOR and WP:V Jbeach56 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Massive OR and a virtually infinite topic raising huge notability and POV issues any direction you turn. ... And if, as another editor suggested, it's a split-off from the original article, then instead of returning it to the original article there needs to be a synthesized discussion about the matter with a few particular examples. For instance "Sometimes used intentionally in popular culture, as in x and y, by producers seeking to garner additional publicity for their work. Some have suggested carries hidden messages or has actual religious significance; for example in these works, commentators A and B suggested that producers inserted intentionally, although that was disputed. Other times the very existence of the item has been disputed, as in the famous satanic grilled cheese." In other words, prose. There's just no reason to list these things. --lquilter 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article currently is in need of help, clarity and sourcing all of which can be accomplished through regular editing. The Mark (or number) of the Beast is well represented in popular culture and has books and lectures on the subject. Yes, the article needs work but that is no reason for deletion. Per WP:AFD If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Asa suggestion it would be helpful to organize instances where the number of the beast is used purposefully to exploit the religious connotations, simply for occult factor, to insight demonic ideas and even as parody. In one lecture I know the researcher cited what I think were accidental occurences so perhaps citing some high-profile accidental uses would be appropriate and comparing this use to how some hotels avoid having a 13th floor and maybe companies that have altered a label for the same cultural reasons. Benjiboi 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's disputing that this topic is encyclopedic and notable - just that it needs its own article. It seems right now that the only reason it can't go back to the original number of the beast article, or indeed the only reason it left there in the first place, is its huge size and choppy presentation. Which in turn are only a necessity because it insists to list in painstaking detail each and every occurrence of the nubmer in bullet-listed form. Given that having this type of "article" is against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TRIVIA), and this will in all probability have to be reduced to paragraphs of prose as lquilter suggested, I think it is best if this is rewritten and merged back pre-emptively; Unless it becomes some gigantic, well-referenced, brilliant treatise- and I frankly don't think there's enough to be said about this subject to warrant that- the best it can hope for is probably to undergo a substantial rewrite and then be merged back by consensus anyway, when it'll be obvious there isn't enough material in it to justify a separate article. --AceMyth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is plenty of content it simply hasn't been introduced into the article as of yet. Years ago I was looking into the subject and there were quite a few books and plenty of papers on the very subject. Granted I felt that some of the thinking was a bit extreme it was pitch-perfect tabloid fodder and there was plenty of it. And lists or bulleted points in and of themselves can be encyclopedic it's just that this one needs more work. I think a decent article should be written and some notable examples provided. Benjiboi 11:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much time this AfD has left, but if you do have the material to turn this into an article you feel could stand on its own, I strongly advise you to rewrite it as at least a proof of concept and make an announcement here once you're done. AfD is not a vote and if the closing admin sees the article does have potential and you are serious about this, they might even overturn a "delete" majority (especially if most of the votes were cast prior to the rewrite). Myself, I still think that 1. No, bulleted points of loosely associated trivia functioning as the entire framework of an article are unencyclopedic by definition, and it would do well to shift the article into prose form; and 2. This text, as it currently is, stands more to gain from being given a context inside of the original article than it does from being given its own article to expand. I very much doubt I'd change my mind about 1, and I urge you to take my advice on that- going head to head with guidelines and consensus rarely benefits an article's health. As for 2, I might be proven wrong just yet. Have at it. --AceMyth 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as much as I've had success rewriting or rescuing articles from AfD I find the entire exercise a bit too stressful. I saw this was up for AfD and then saw how much the article needed some TLC but I have numerous other commitments to tend to before doing a rewrite to maybe save an article. I believe it certainly can be a great article and to me AfD is to explore the potential of an article: Is it beyond hope of ever being a good article or can it be improved through regular editing? If I have time I will try to research some potential sources for research. Benjiboi 23:37, 13 October 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.