Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones 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 no consensus to delete even after discounting some of the WP:ILIKEIT votes . Jaranda wat's sup 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones in popular culture

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

Yet another very trivial pop culture list. RobJ1981 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Yet another trivial list of indiscriminate topics. Resolute 04:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete simply having a storm appear doesn't merit mention. This article can be reduced to "Storms sometimes appear in media, frequently as a source of danger". --Eyrian 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial list of indiscriminate topics. Oysterguitarist 04:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete via the same rationale of Eyrian. You could probably do the same for basically every natural phenomenon, and it would end up as the same list of trivia. --Haemo 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this useful and interesting collection that underscores the importance of tropical storms to society. In most of the books, films, and other media mentioned, the storm is not merely mentioned, but is either the focus of the story, or a pivitol event. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although not as bad as some IPC articles I've seen here recently, still trivia. Crazysuit 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not a believer in that these trivial items show importance of the topic in question. Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even the guys who don't like these articles seem to think its pretty good--carefully limited to major items, divided into good groupings, shows what can be done with a list. This would seem the obvious place to collect this information. Analysis of some objections
  1. "can be reduced to "Storms sometimes appear in media, frequently as a source of danger" -- and s could every WP article be reduced to a trivial statement if you want to ridicule it: Katrina, just another hurricane. Yes, they kill people.
  2. "trivial list of indiscriminate topics" -- seems to use trivial as a synonym for list , and indiscriminate for topics, since every list discussed has been so-called. what distinguishes trivial and indiscriminate is whether the list deals with significant movies and books and so forth, and it does.
  3. "yet another trivial pop culture list" shows nicely the inability to tell one from another, possibly because some of the !voters are not actually examining them.
  4. "I'm not a believer" an interesting refinement on IDONTLIKEIT. Personally, I'll judge by logic, based on the actual articles and the policy, not what I personally like or believe.

DGG (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a list of fictional hurricanes/tropical storms, with a brief blurb about where they appeared. Although this is marginally more encyclopedic than "any mention of a hurricane ever", it's certainly not an article about "hurricanes in popular culture". In fact, none of the material in this article discusses the topic at all; it's just a laundry list of examples -- something Wikipedia is not. As I explained above, exactly the same encyclopedic merit could be retained from the one-line mentioned -- since the rest of the article adds nothing to the subject. Apparently, hurricanes have shown up in a number of different TV programs, music, and films -- however, there are no reliable sources that discuss the topic of "...in Popular Culture" at all. Instead, we're left with a list of examples of dubious merit, and left to synthesize some sort of understanding about hurricanes in popular culture from it. --Haemo 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
To put it in perspective, if I made an article called Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and then filled it with a list of examples of Israelis committing crimes against Palestinians, my article would be summarily deleted -- because, although it is apparent that such a thing happens, the article contained no sources which explained why the topic was notable, or added any sort of encyclopedic merit. This is pretty much the same thing. --Haemo 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. More culturecruft. Oh, goody. Realkyhick 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. Not a trivia-fest like many "popular culture" pages. JulesH 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It really is though. "Hurricane Eve: Hit Miami, Florida on the premiere episode of Invasion." That's not trivia(l)? Bulldog123 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. Would like to see an introductory, cited paragraph about the role of tropical storms in popular culture though. And that is entirely doable. Recurring dreams 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Trivia fest. Beorhtric 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am curious as to what exactly would lead someone reading this AFD to conclude that "the guys who don't like these articles seem to think its pretty good." I mean, one person said that it's not as bad as other similar articles but how one goes from that to the above conclusion is more than a little mystifying. Regardless, as with so many other articles of this ilk, this one is a directory of loosely associated topics. This list does not increase our understanding of tropical cyclones, the fiction from which the references are drawn, how the listed items relate to each other, or the real world. Otto4711 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I added info to the article, I don't agree in its place in an encyclopedia. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Upon re-reading it after a lot of work was done on it, I think it would be better renamed, but I don't think it should be deleted. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Cultural depictions of tropical cyclones. Generally agree with DGG. I suspect that the "popular culture" label is disliked partially because it is often misread as recent and fannish. The single most important fictional tropical cyclone I know of, the one appearing in Joseph Conrad's Typhoon, is only alluded to here: mostly because Conrad has an academic reputation and is no longer perceived as pure entertainment, a flaw of the "popular culture" label. Our article on tropical cyclone is quite long already, and a fork of this material is justified. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Limit trivia in wikipedia, don't fork it. There could be a good article on this. However, this isn't it; not even close. Impossible to bring up to par without complete re-write Bulldog123 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    There's a contrapositive to that statement - it must be possible to "bring up to par" with a complete rewrite. Ergo, mend it, don't end it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If deleted, I'm sure the closing admin would be glad to WP:USERFY the content to somebody's talk page. 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article obviously needs work but it does have some coverage of a motif that is definitely there, can be discussed in a broader sense, and is verifiable. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, too indiscriminate. It's triviacruft. -- Mikeblas 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is just originally researched unencyclopedic trivia with no place in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of loosely associated topics with very limited sourcing, and none of the three sources given are particularly reliable. --Coredesat 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Rename if necessary per Smerdis of Tlön. Definitely improvable and is not just any list. This isn't so much about popular culture. As Smerdis of Tlön mentioned this also includes non-trivial works. – Chacor 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and and move to Cultural depictions of tropical cyclones Per above.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I must be becoming an elitist; what does popular culture have to do with an encyclopedia? These titles just rub me wrong. This is plain, silly trivia and should be stamped out with prejudice. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eyrian and Haemo. I was notified about this because I had contributed to the article... my recollection is that it has been up for deletion before and I was probably making a good-faith effort to improve. But that was almost two years ago and if it isn't encyclopedic now I don't think it's ever will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC) P. S. Since when are "completely idiosyncratic non-topics" encyclopedic? The the deletion policy used to list "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" as an example of material that should be deleted. Does anyone know when and why it was removed? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Suppose the article were rewritten across thematic lines instead of simply divided by media? There seem to be three basic kinds of uses for tropical cyclones in fiction: as the "nature" element in a man-vs.-nature story (as in Typhoon, where the captain shows his resolve by going into the storm), as a MacGuffin driving the characters to act (which was the basis for the Golden Girls/Empty Nest/Nurses crossover, or in the stories where evildoers opportunistically engaging in nefarious deeds under cover of the storm), or as a backstory putting the characters in place for the story to unfold (The Tempest, Gilligan's Island). Would that be an acceptable arrangement for an article? bd2412 T 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I like to call "leading original research". Because, instead of actually providing a sourced analysis, one takes individually acceptable steps to try and fool the reader into thinking that analysis has occurred. But it still doesn't solve the problem of no citations. --Eyrian 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, suppose I find (or someone finds) a source describing the use of tropical cyclones in fiction? bd2412 T 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for various reasons I will give. (1) The National Hurricane Center seems to consider this a matter with enough interest to place in its FAQ. Which, I'd like to point out, could provide a source for several items in this list. If the NHC does it, why can't Wikipedia? (2) This is intended to prevent this the section mentioned in the tropical cyclone article from becoming bloated. (3) Just because something needs cleanup or references is not well written does not mean that it should be deleted. For example, the article List of Atlantic hurricane seasons has no references, but that does not mean it should not be in Wikipedia. Using the other problem, List of New England hurricanes needs a lot of work (for example, sometimes it uses tables and other times a bulleted list) but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Basically, just because an article has problem and needs attention (which this one does) does not mean that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (4)Other articles, such as Tyrannosaurus, Dinosaurs, and penguins have similar "issues" as this one. If the arguement that "X in popular culture"="trivia" is taken to its conclusion, we reach the point where it is forbidden to mention the thagomizer in the Stegosaurus article because "Thagomozer is popular culture, therefore, thagimizer is trivia and should be deleted" even though that is important in science. The same applies here, for example, the novel storm (although strictly speaking an extratropical cyclone) was influential enough to contribute to the idea of naming tropical cyclones.[1]. (5) Just because some mentions of tropical cyclones in popular culture are minor does not mean that all mentions are minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for finding the NOAA site, I've added it as a reference for the article and quoted it's salient passage therein. I'll look to further source and build the article from it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a good reference of how fictional tropical cyclones can enter our culture and many fictional elements have mentions, or even articles, on here. CrazyC83 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename It's a good article with a terrible name. #1, it's about hurricanes (tropical cyclones start in the Pacific, hurricanes in the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico), and #2, it's not about the influence of hurricanes or cyclones on pop culture, it's a list of novels, films and TV episodes where a severe storm was the subject. To that end, it's worthwhile. As with violent crimes, people worldwide would rather watch a severe storm rather than to be caught up in one. Never use the words "in popular culture" if you can at all avoid it. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of saying Candyman three times. Mandsford 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Tropical cyclone" is a general name for the phenomena, although they have localized names as well. Everyking 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and impove whilst updating some of the infomation. For example there was a programme called superstorm on BBC 1 earlier in the year which had a few Fictional Cyclones Jason Rees 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the simple reason that it is the Summary style-expansion of Tropical cyclone#Tropical cyclones in popular culture. This article can't be merged there due to the size of the Tropical cyclone article, and the information needs to be somewhere. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - shows the importance of tropical cyclones to popular culture, and it certainly could be improved. The current state of an article is no reason to delete it if it could be improved to be encyclopedic, and this is certainly moving in the right direction. bob rulz 02:57, 31 July 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.