Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in 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. Strothra 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in culture

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

While the list is interesting, it's mostly original reasearch and loosely related items, and cultural references of the "Oh look, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia last night!" type (and yes, it was, and yes, it's there). The only good relevant part of the article is probably Wikiality, which could be merged into The Colbert Show. Will (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article is simply a trivia collection. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Wikipedia is popping up in society and culture at large, as news. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - indiscriminate collection of non-associated items. The items on this list bear absolutely no relationship to each other past happening to have included the word "Wikipedia" in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And before anyone suggests it, oppose merger of any of this content into Wikipedia or any other article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:IINFO, indiscriminate list of Wikipedia pop culture mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible speedy keep due to being improperly formatted. I believe this discussion needs to acknowledge the earlier AfD that resulted in "keep" in the nomination and that this discussion should therefore have a "2" in the title. Probably an honest error, but I believe that is the format of these things and we do need to be consistent. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, though, the article's talk page indicates that this discussion is technically the second one and I believe the typical format is to note the earlier discussion in the title of the AfD and in the nomination. Even if that doesn't make a speedy, then I still think we should follow the regular format and anyway, the topic is clearly notable enough and organized coherently enough to satisfy list and merit inclusion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, here's a thought, read the guideline. Wikipedia:Speedy keep specifies the circumstances under which an AFD may be closed speedily and none of them remotely apply to this AFD. The article has a different name than the last time it went through AFD and the nominator, clearly and obviously acting in good faith, did not notice it. You have now linked the previous AFD (although you should probably learn how to do direct links to other Wikipedia pages sometime soon) and there are no grounds for a speedy keep. It does not matter that this AFD doesn't say "(2nd nomination)" in its title. Did you have a comment on the substantive issues of the nomination or are you only interested in wikilawyering? Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case, then still keep the article for meeting notability guidelines and following our requirements for lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So, no comment on the substantive issues. OK then. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no substantive problems with the article. It is a discriminate list of items with a common theme or element. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Wikipedia'" is not an element. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The article demonstrates Wikipedia 's influence/affect on culture by referencing its various appearances in comics, on television, etc. in a relatively thorough manner. Anyone wondering what impact Wikipedia has had can look at this artilce, see its various mentions and have a decent idea of Wikipedia 's prominence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it really doesn't. The fact that a word is merely mentioned or a concept merely referenced does not mean that the mere mention or reference itself demonstrates influence. One word out of a two-hour movie or 30 minute sitcom or even four-panel comic strip does not tie the movie or sitcom or comic strip to each other in any meaningful way. There is likely not one person on the face of the Earth who, if presented with any two items off this list, think to themselves "oh yes, X is so much like Y, they both included the word 'Wikipedia' once!" If this list were called what it actually is, List of times Wikipedia was said, then even the most hardcore inclusionists might be given pause. But instead it's dressed up in the "... in culture" label which causes so many people so much confusion from thinking that running to the computer to try to win the "spot the reference" game is a constructive use of time. Otto4711 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL - previous AfD and sources. --Strothra (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Noting again that speedy keep is not an option. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:SNOWBALL. --Strothra 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article needs some attention; the content needs to be organized better and duplicate entries need to be removed, but it should be kept. It is a discriminate, associated list, limited to references of Wikipedia in different media. Since Wikipedia itself is the product of a cultural phenomenon, this page is important because it highlights the parallel of Wikipedia's growth in both general awareness and popularity. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The section of the main article that actually discusses the cultural significance of Wikipedia serves that purpose and is sourced prose. This list remains nothing more than a list of times someone said "Wikipedia" on TV or in the comics. It is out-of-control trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You point to WP:TRIV like it is a policy about content, when in fact it is a manual of style guideline that deals with how to organize content. From the "What this guideline is not" section in WP:TRIV: This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. It's fine if you don't believe this is useful content, I happen to disagree with you about that, but let's all make sure we are citing guidelines that actually support the points we are trying to make. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm not pointing to WP:TRIVIA as if it is policy. I am pointing to WP:NOT as if it were policy, because it is, in fact, policy. If the only association between the things on this list is the presence of a single word, then the association between them is, to say the least, loose. If the items are included on this list because the word "Wikipedia" is mentioned no matter what the source or context, then the list is indiscriminate. Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the context of your previous response to me, it sounded like you believed WP:TRIV contained criteria for removal. I am glad that we are all clear that you never held that belief, and that we shouldn't misconstrue your words to think you believed that. With regards to your point about the policies at WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR (which you only linked in your initial vote, not in the context of responding to me), I can only repeat my earlier point: this is a discriminate, associated list; the article is not just documenting every instance of the word "Wikipedia", it documents the social process through which Wikipedia went from unknown to known by the general public. You pointed to Wikipedia#Cultural_significance, which demonstrates the significance of this information, and readers can find further information about the cultural significance of Wikipedia in the dedicated article. Again, it needs some cleanup/restructuring, and but the content is valuable and it should not be deleted. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The notion that a list of times someone said Wikipedia on TV documents anything about the social process is, frankly, nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then it sounds like we have conflicting opinions; I hope you are as pleased as I am to come to this understanding. And now that we have both clearly expressed our different view points, I think we can let others continue this discussion. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is some notable stuff here, such as Wikiality, but In pop culturitis is so rife here that the patient will never be healthy without radical amputations and very strict monitoring. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace, then clippingly merge whatever useful there is to History of Wikipedia and/or Criticism of Wikipedia, or some other relevant articles. We can document all minor little factoids in project space but only major things that are somehow relevant in grand scheme of things should end up in articles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support the above suggestion, that seems most sensible to me. This page is of interest primarily to Wikipedians; it would be more appropriate to choose a few major things for article space. -- Mithent (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support wwwwolf's suggestion; proper application of WP:NOT, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.- JustPhil 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is plainly neither "a directory" nor "an indiscriminate collection of information". Overly broad invocations of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO such as these could be used to delete every single list article that exists on Wikipedia -- this is clearly not what those policies are intended for.--Father Goose (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they couldn't, because not every list article that exists on Wikipedia is an attempt to capture the appearance of a single word every time it appears in any popular medium the way this one is. Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a spurious characterization of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If by "spurious" you mean "accurate" then I agree. Look at the actual article. The vast bulk of it is "On this TV show a character said said 'blah blah Wikipedia blah blah." and "A character said 'Wikipedia blah blah blah' in this comic strip." The sole inclusion criterion for the list is "the word 'Wikipedia' is mentioned." Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per above and the large amount of great sourcing. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace nothing notable other than maybe "Wikality", but of interest to Wikipedians. Laïka 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I Agree with that. Very few non-Wikipedians would really care. After all, there is no "Encyclopædia Britannica in culture". -- Scorpion0422 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Considering the number of people who are interested enough in Wikipedia to have made the references documented by this article, I suspect non-Wikipedians do indeed care. The argument presented here is a variation of WP:WHOCARES either way.--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, well-sourced, useful per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ISD (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, per above arguements. Kolindigo (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There are plenty of secondary sources in this article which prove the notability of the topic. Even if the list itself violated policy it would be a travesty to delete the entire article because of it. However, the list doesn't violate policy. Claims of policy violation are based on misinterpretations of no original research, which specifically allows citation of primary sources for making descriptive claims (and the fact that the nominator himself was able to verify the Sideshow Bob reference is proof alone that it is not original research); loosely associated topics, which requires entries that are "associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", which in this case they plainly do (no policy requires list entries to be associated with each other, despite Otto4711's assertions); and indiscriminate information, which specifically lists various types of articles which consensus has determine are not appropriate for the encyclopedia—lists of cultural references being nowhere to be found on that list, nor is there any evident wide consensus that they do not belong in the encyclopedia. DHowell (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been fairly clearly established through countless AFDs that the list at WP:NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive and that even if a list doesn't match 100% one of the enumerated items the list can still be indiscriminate. The notion that the simple mention of the word "Wikipedia" is automatically "significant" is ludicrous. But clearly the idea of having a masturbatory "ooh-wee, somebody said wikipedia on the tee-vee" is so compelling that rational arguments make no difference. Oh well. Not like this is the only compilation of garbage that will persist on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That the policy heading is constantly abused in AfD discussions does not establish a consensus for its application to any type of material that is not specifically enumerated in that policy. See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 11#Wikipedia is not clear (or at least one section isn't). Most things that get deleted with a nomination reason of "indiscriminate information" get deleted for other reasons, such as failing not a directory or notability (or because a bunch of "I don't like it"-type delete arguments were piled on and nobody seemed to care enough about the article at the time to argue to keep it). Saying "indiscriminate information" to mean anything outside the enumerated items is simply a statement of opinion, and is no better an argument for deletion than saying "unencyclopedic". Note that attempts to prohibit "trivia" in the WP:NOT#IINFO section have been soundly rejected by consensus. DHowell (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of a full disclosure, in the context this article is citied (Page 2, section 2.2.2, half way down on the right hand column), I think the author of that paper would have been better citing the Wikiality article. But your point is still made, this article has been cited in an academic work. EDIT Laf. I think the author of that paper was smarter than I am, because as you can see, my link to Wikiality is redirected to this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above keeps. Valid topic. Perhaps a name change to Cultural impact of Wikipedia or Wikipedia in society. Think outside the box 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above arguements. Greswik 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Again for all the reasons the keepers gave above JayKeaton 00:43, 1 December 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.