Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Popular culture on Wikipedia 
Basic list - Category - WikiProject - Deletions
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Popular culture. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Popular culture}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Popular culture.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

This list is for "... in popular culture" or "cultural depictions of ..."-type articles.


Contents

[edit] Popular culture

[edit] Of Mice and Men in popular culture

Of Mice and Men in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a cluttered trivial dumping ground. Relevant contents belong in the Of Mice and Men article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I discovered this AfD when I came to merge notable content back into Of Mice and Men. Now that I'm looking at the article tho, there won't be much content to merge, just that "tell me again about the rabbits" and the archetypes of the two characters are frequently referenced. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, there will be more when people have a chance to work on it. I think that for notable works, the default should not be to merge the content. what the nom thinks to be trivia is actually cultural influences, and the use of the theme subsequently is perhaps as ultimately important as the work itself. DGG (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday devices in popular culture

Doomsday devices in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply a trivial dumping ground for any doomsday device reference in popular culture. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or weak partial merge There are so many films with doomsday as its main theme (see Doomsday film), and even more with a doomsday device, that this list becomes filled with indiscriminate plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#PLOT). A thorough discussion of doomsday devices can take place at Doomsday device, which is still rather stubbish. – sgeureka t•c 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as getting rid of the sonic weapon in pop culture thing. Just a huge collection of trivia whose relevant information is better contained in the appropriate articles. The list is incomplete (and will always be incomplete because of its relatively indiscriminate nature) not to mention many of the items are entirely non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in favor of a category, my standard answer for this. If a page for the topic exists, put it in a category; no mess, no fuss. But, as it stands now, it's an unsourced list.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd be surprised if this weren't covered in some independent sci-fi compendium. FWIW, I do now remember reading about the rise of this device in film paralleling the development of the atomic bomb and the obvious connections. I will get the ref. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Casliber says, there will be no problem finding sources. I am really puzzled by the argument that because there are many works that use the theme, the theme is not suitable for an article. I'd think it exactly the other way around. (Come to think of it, the argument is also used the other way around. Makes no sense either way. if there's enough to right an article, the use of any theme in notable works is a suitable encyclopedic subject. If notable artists use it, they know what they're doing.) I am almost equally puzzled by the reappearance of some other arguments. Indiscriminate does not mean difficult to define, but covering everything in a conceivable group without consideration of importance--the consideration here is appearance in a notable work, which is defined as for any other list--having a Wikipedia article or being substantially covered in one. Next, that a list has some inappropriate items -- that is a reason for editing not deletion--just as with any article. If we deleted every article that had something inappropriate in it, we'd be down to the FAs. A list does not have to be complete--I wonder where anyone got the idea; Wikipedia is not complete in any topic, and never will be. (And if it were, people would then start saying indiscriminate again.) And the favorite argument that it belongs in a category instead is opposed by the consensus that agreed on WP:list -- there is no reason not to have both--a category has the advantage of being built automatically, a list of being able to give some actual information about the use. It's not just the fact of the use, but the context and the role in the work--you can't do that with a category. DGG (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needed to be sorted, and a couple of nonnotable entried removed, but it looks a lot better now. Doomsday film should probably be merged into this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Indiscriminate collection of some plot summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for want of sources that speak to the subject, and for contravention of WP:TRIVIA. This is a good example of why I'm such a hardass on trivia lists, because this list labels a very broad range of fearsome fictional weapons as "Doomsday devices" without much basis. WillOakland (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As I'm sure you're already aware, WP:TRIVIA is against unselective and indiscriminate lists, neither of which describe this page. This page lists different media in which a doomsday device has played a major role/was a major theme, which makes it a selective and discriminate list. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What this page lists are a bunch of fictional plot devices that some editor thinks are doomsday devices, even though there is not one source of literary criticism to substantiate that. Some of the devices aren't devices, and some of them don't destroy the world. Some are too vague to even begin to know one way or the other. The list is original research and having it in a separate article encourages the growth of precisely what WP:TRIVIA is supposed to restrain. WillOakland (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Would a single review with the word "doomsday" in it be enough to satisfy the OR problem? --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to see at least one source that analyzes the concept of doomsday weaponry across several works, to establish that there is a subject to write about here. WillOakland (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No different from any other "in popular culture" article. Aseld talk 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
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. Shereth 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Sonic weaponry in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete article is just a trivia list. An attempt could be made to write an encyclopedic article on the subject and its real world impact but, this isn't it and probably isn't even the skeleton of it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd be surprised if there weren't some mention in some sci-fi magazine or film book, given gadgets like Dr Who's sonic screwdriver. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list of very loosely associated bits of information. Plus, they forgot Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Target Earth. Deor (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Crufty cesspit, they also forgot Banshee one of the early X-Men. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a trivia list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - While I think Casliber may have been on to something regarding Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver, but I'm not sure there's enough real world info out there to really warrant this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I guess almost every sci-fi movie or television series has sonic weapons, which would make this list indiscriminate (WP:NOT#IINFO). I wouldn't mind seeing a nice sourced paragraph or two about this topic at Sonic weaponry, but this list is just a bad idea. – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful with Sonic Weaponry. And make sure Hawkwind's Sonic Attack gets a mention too. --Karenjc
  • Keep a good place to bring the material together.If sssentially every game and what not has it, then frst,it shows that this feature is notable, and ,second, it makes the potential length too long for a merge. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Sonic Weaponry. there're Google Books refs, topic is popular within the society and Wikipedia needs to cover this popularity. I agree that rewriting as some sourced paragraph could be nice, but content must be kept now for that to happen later. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Zef (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Notable element of (sorta) fictional technology, and as DGG puts it above, the abundance of information suggests both notability and lack of suitability for merges elsewhere. Ford MF (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but don't keep (so merge or just redirect) in any case. This is awful, it's just a list of every time there's a form of attack that has something to do with sound. Some of these aren't even weapons. Ugh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Have sonic weapons really had a significant enough impact on popular culture to warrant an encyclopedia article? Popular does not always mean notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
actually, I think it does. I interpret the guideline as saying that things can be notable even if they are not popular. But in any event, widely used by notable artists is saying a good deal more than "popular." DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails to meet the general notability guideline of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If someone turns up some kind of "sonic weaponry monthly" magazine, I'll change my vote. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, created contrary to WP:TRIVIA. Does not cite sources that speak to the subject (or any that don't, almost). WillOakland (talk) 20:46, 12 June 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.


[edit] Archived debates

[edit] April 2008

[edit] February 2008

[edit] January 2008

[edit] December 2007

[edit] November 2007

[edit] June 2007

  • (AfD2) Fight Club in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Artemis in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Ferris Bueller in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Space colonization in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Napoleon in popular culture – Keep
  • (AfD) Amazons in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Chickens in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Popular cultural references for The Wizard of Oz – Delete
  • (AfD4) HHO gas and Brown's gas - Delete (now redirects)

[edit] May 2007

  • (AfD) List of cultural references to The Shining – Delete
  • (AfD) Henry Darger in popular culture – Delete

[edit] April 2007

  • (AfD3) Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. – Delete
  • (AfD) Celine Dion awards and accomplishments – Keep
  • (AfD) Beelzebub in popular culture – No consensus
  • (AfD) Monoliths in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Unsourced popular culture articles (mass nomination) – Closed
    • Deleted: Henry_Darger_in_popular_culture,Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr., Bruce Lee and popular culture,Jack Kerouac in popular culture, Cultural references to the Rosenbergs, Walt Whitman in popular culture, References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture; 19 others kept.
  • (AfD) Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye – No consensus

[edit] March 2007

[edit] February 2007

  • (AfD) Piano in popular culture – No consensus
  • (AfD) Semtex in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. – No consensus
  • (AfD) Piano wire in popular culture – Delete
  • (AfD) Swastikas in popular culture – Delete