Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Stooges 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Three Stooges in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is just trivial listcruft/clutter at best. If there is any important notes, they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't you say that a topic like "Three Stooges legacy" or any topic documenting their influence on popular culture, would be so important as to belong on the main page? If that page is too long, then a debate could be started there about spinning off a relevant sub-section into a sub-page. But this page doesn't even remotely resemble a sub-page...I think work is needed to turn it into prose and make it encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
And the easiest way to work on something is to not delete it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no meaningful difference in difficulty between in-place editing and a user-space move. That argument is spurious. Mintrick (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support leaving bad material in the main namespace more often than not, because I think that's how wikipedia works best, but this case seems just too pronounced, because (1) the content is bad (2) the very name of the topic is problematic, and honestly (3) I don't think much would be lost if it were outright deleted: the only value I see to the material being kept is as a list of "things to potentially incorporate into an encyclopedic narrative"--and userspace is the appropriate place for such lists, not wikipedia itself. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of Stoogeology by Peter Seely, Gail W. Pieper a 272 page book that "provides an in-depth look at their comedy and its impact on twentieth century art, culture and thought" seems to refute the idea that there is a lack of substantial coverage. Have you looked for sources? They exist in a multitude. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As fancruft. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Three Stooges. I personally think that little material is worth merging (it's a list, mostly unencyclopedic) but if anyone feels very strongly about keeping the material I would recommend weaving it into well-written prose on the main page...that's the only way I think it is appropriate to retain the material here. I am firmly in favor of merging or deleting the "X in popular culture" pages in general. Cazort (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another IPC article without any notability. An encyclopedia is not the place to document every time ____ is seen in popular culture Corpx (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added note of a book covering this subject in particular above. There are also sources like this [1] and this one [2] related to the king of pop. So it's not hard to find very substantial coverage of this highly notable topic. Whether it should be a list article as it is now, or made into a standard coverage of the subject is an editing decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The delete votes are puzzling. If there are only 10 IPC articles permitted in Wikipedia, then this would almost certainly be one of them. They've been covered in any number of derivative media, had homages in others. No objection to trimming content that doesn't meet WP:V, but claiming non-notability for these is just inappropriate. WP:IPC supports the article in substantially its current state. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think AfD was the most constructive way to handle this issue, but now that the discussion is open I do think there are multiple issues with keeping this material/page as-is. As it's currently written, it's a list and unencyclopedic. The material would be better written as prose and incorporated into a narrative discussing underlying themes. Wikipedia is not a random repository of knowledge--it's a WEB of knowledge which means, rather than presenting random lists of facts, it should tell a story about each topic and describe how the topics relate to each other, and discuss unifying themes. I see little or no value to pages that are little more than collections of random facts. That's what's behind my "puzzling" vote. Cazort (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also suggested merging as an option, which isn't really a delete !vote. Deletion is only for when WP:ATD has failed, and many others made no attempt to suggest a good alternative as you did. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that I meant that a merge would be only appropriate in the case that someone had rewritten the material into encyclopedic prose. I think that is a necessary starting point if someone feels very strongly about keeping the material and does not want it deleted--because in its current form I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. I suspect this isn't going to happen overnight, so maybe a merge the way I envision it would be unrealistic, and a delete + userify would be better...then people can work on making it into prose and weaving it into the main article. Cazort (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geo Swan's search clearly demonstrates the notability of the three stooges. However, I am unconvinced that a page with the topic "Three Stooges in popular culture" needs to exist. ChildOfMidnight's recommendation to rename to "Three Stooges legacy" makes sense. But more importantly, the current form of the content of this page is unencyclopedic. Do you have a strong rationale for keeping the article in the current form? Or a strong objection to deleting and then userifying it, with the intention of weaving it into a narrative? Cazort (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (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/Three_Stooges_in_popular_culture&oldid=1086359417"