Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hollow Men in popular culture

Add links
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. Widespread agreement that the article is unacceptable in its current state, and merging does seem to be a recurring proposal. However, with no strong consensus toward any of the three main options discussed here, this seems best dealt with by the editorial community. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The Hollow Men in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem The Hollow Men. Nominated for deletion per WP:IPC, WP:ROC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA: (A) trivia articles should be avoided (B) this is a collection of trivia that is not important to the T.S. Eliot article or the poem's article, and offers no substantive insight into those topics (C) the material isn't substantive enough to include or integrate into either of those articles, (D) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". (E) There is no context, and it's largely a list of superficial "hey, someone wanted to look smart, so they quoted Eliot. nothing more, just a quote." Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please retain. I see the above points but this article can (a) be of of use to cultural researchers and (b) keep all the trivia from being added and deleted again and again to the main article. It is in the end more important than the 250,000 or so K-12 school articles on Wikipedia. WikiParker (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced, in that options of trimming and/or merging are not addressed, both of which must be inappropriate per WP:ATD for deletion to be a policy-based option. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several reasons for deletion have been advanced. They are linked above in the nomination. Both trimming and merging are addressed in points B and C. ATD is more than satisfied because none of the proposed solutions at ATD are possible. This can sit tagged for "cleanup" or whatever for a decade and it will never happen. Garbage with a tag on it is still garbage and still irredeemable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens, the nominator offered a substantial grounding in policy and stated it wasn't worth merging. Your concerns sound like you ignored reading the nominator's initial statement above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Hollow Men#Influence in culture per WP:IINFO, as a random (i.e., originally researched) and almost entirely unsourced list of references and allusions, both substantial and trivial, with no explanation of the relevance or significance of the individual entries. Information on the Nachleben of Eliot's poem—written in prose and citing judiciously chosen examples that are supported by sources explaining their significance in the reception or interpretation of the poem—belongs in the article on the poem itself. (I'm continually surprised that the message of Randall Munroe's satire hasn't penetrated more deeply into Wikipedians' consciousness.) Deor (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nominator who seems to have cut-and-paste my rationale for AFDing The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture earlier this week. This is a mess of obscure references to mostly non-notable works a "me too" list of people who think they're cool and sound erudite because they've heard of Eliot. How many of them are just people mentioning "not with a bang, but with a whimper" to an audience too dumb and oblivious to know it? This isn't worth merging. It is the crufty epitome of useless indiscriminate trivia and needs to be deleted and not with a whimper.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When notable cultural artifact are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotting something that includes the word "hollow man" and deciding with no justification that it simply must be a reference to this poem is not a "notable cultural artifact" or "significant elements" of anything. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG's analysis. For whatever reason I missed the Prufrock AfD discussion, so I can't address whether there are relevant differences here or whether I would have supported keeping that article, but taking this one on its own merits, it's evident that the work has had great impact and a reasonable discussion of that impact would be too long to fit within the confines of the parent article. And while many don't like articles like this one, many others do, and there's no reason the subject can't be addressed encyclopedically. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A perfectly reasonable discussion could easily fit in the main article on the work itself. The problem is that too many editors are not perfectly reasonable in determining that something is encyclopedically relevant and not trivia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very selectively merge to The Hollow Men. There is already a section in the main article on the poem's cultural reception. A few lines of the most significant allusions will give the main article a boost. This article, on the other hand, is one of those dreadful collections of everything that has ever been said and done about a notable topic. This stuff doesn't belong in its own article or in the poem's main article. If this is kept, over 90% of it would need to be removed through our best editing practices. ThemFromSpace 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or partial merge as above. Discussing the use of a topic in popular culture is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia, but it should not be a repository for every trivial mention and reference in every single piece of media in existence. Limiting it to critical, well sourced examples within the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Hollow Men#Influence in culture as has been suggested already. The list is too long and thin for my liking but some items stand out as being worth recording and expanding on. The item which I felt was an absolute "must", Apocalypse Now, I see is already transiently covered in the article on the poem itself. However, the list is harmless, and might help future editors in expanding the section in The Hollow Men, so much the best thing is to merge any suitable material keeping a redirect and the history. Deletion would be absurd in my view since the material itself is quite satisfactory and attributable. The only issue for me is which items should be maintained in WP and in what manner they should be presented. It is a pity this could not have been left to the talk page to sort out. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hollow_Men_in_popular_culture&oldid=1138843868"