Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibonacci numbers in popular culture (2nd nomination)

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 - certainly needs work, but it meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci numbers in popular culture

Reads like a crufty list of trivia. No criteria for inclusion, plenty of unsourced stuff, plenty of seemingly non-notable stuff. Even if these problems were solved, I'm not sure there's a great deal of encyclopaedic value to such an article (so what if the Fibonnaci sequence was featured in an xkcd episode? What's the significance?).

Was previously AfDed; result was no consensus. About the best reason for keep (IMHO) was the fact that it kept the cruft out of the main Fibonacci article. However, cruft is cruft; that's not a valid reason for this article's retention. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been awhile since I saw an ipc article nominated, and this is trivia based on mentions of the Fibonacci sequence in books, films, comic strips, etc. Although I'm impressed by the author's recognition of references to Fibonacci numbers, there's nothing here that would be interesting enough to include in the main article. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason for deletion, plus clear reader interest, and consistent with What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As that link says, "cruft" on its own isn't a rational reason; however, it also says "Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia.". As I said in my proposal above, I fail to see the significance or notability of the overwhelming majority of the material in this article. Oli Filth^(talk) 08:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word is just plain unhelpful as others have argued. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or, more precisely: others have argued that the word is unhelpful. That doesn't make it unhelpful. It serves a perfectly good purpose to identify content creep, specifically the addition and inclusion of unsourced or unhelpful information that violates WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's unhelpful and is used too often for articles like this one that pass what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Reduce to what is supported by cited sources since this is a list with no unifying secondary document--no secondary work discussion the subject of the article--each item on the list basically becomes a contentious claim. I'm on the fence as to whether or not the construction of a list like this constitutes OR, this probably doesn't, but the unsourced statements need to go. At that point we have 5 claims left in the article (may be more more, but I haven't read the references that aren't attached to in-line citations). The rest of the claims are unsourced or generated from editorial adaptation of primary sources. At least two of these claims belong in a different wikipedia article. AfD is not cleanup, but my point is that what would be left after this article is stubbed and sourced would be not be enough to merit retention as a stub. Here is what the page would look like: Article with unreferenced claims removed. And remember, there is no guiding secondary document for this list. No secondary work that lists or hints at a list of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that you were able to edit this article to one which you feel satisfies policy means that deletion is unwarranted. I do not understand what Wikipedia policy or guideline makes you think that your version of the article "would be not be enough to merit retention as a stub". We have thousands of stubs which are far shorter and much less sourced than this. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. At least this sequence can't be used by accident (like list of songs with colours in the title etc). Intentional use is mildly interesting. But cover in tags to facilitate removal of OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does read like a crufty sort of thing; that's reason to improve it, not to delete it. The topic is notable for this reason: allusions to the Fibonacci numbers in writing or speaking on virtually any subject are widely understood. The article should document that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just left this comment on the article's talk page, and it's relevant here as well:

Now the fact is, many of the items now listed on this page are not sufficiently notable to be a topic in an encyclopedia. That shouldn't matter here, since it is not necessary for individual instances of a mode of allusion to be notable in order for them to illustrate that the allusion itself is notable. But I think priority should be given to examples that do illustrate that.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To play devil's advocate for a moment, why is Fibonacci's sequence especially worthy of an article about allusions to it? As someone said in the last AfD, why not Lentils in popular culture? Or Grenades in popular culture? Or anything else? Just because it's a mathematical concept, it doesn't make it unusual or notable that it's been referenced in "popular culture". Oli Filth^(talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said anything about "especially"? It is one of many many things about which popular culture articles should and do exist on Wikipedia. As far as I know, no one routinely relies on the public's familiarity with lentils or grenades for rhetorical effect in allusions. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I copied my reply from the first AfD. Fibonacci number is long and the topic has a whole category: Category:Fibonacci numbers. The amount of information related to Fibonacci numbers makes it impractical to keep in a single article. Some of the listed popular culture entries are weak and unsourced but that is not sufficient reason to delete the whole article. And it isn't just mentions of Fibonacci numbers but also practical applications. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no need to list every single minor use of the topic within pieces of media. For an article to be necessary, it would have to have many paragraphs discussing the topic in popular culture. Because it lacks that potential for various paragraphs, one or two paragraphs can easily be placed within the main article instead. TTN (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay so then you're essentially arguing to merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, something new should be written from scratch. There is nothing in this list worth merging. TTN (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can write something new without deleting the contribution history. Obviously editors aboe do think some stuff can be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion criterion is well-defined, but the utility of this list is not. If recreated, it should be as a discussion of how non-mathematicians have used and abused the sequence. There is no shortage of pop-sci books devoted to the numbers as well as a plethora devoted to "beating the stock market". - Eldereft (cont.) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article seems to attract things like today's edit. Even if this were sourced, how on earth would this be interesting, notable, significant, or anything else that would make it worth mentioning on Wikipedia? Oli Filth^(talk) 09:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would depend on the nature of the reference. If it were as memorable as Lewis Carroll's references to mathematics, it would be both interesting and notable; but this is a writing flaw: the edit should not have been vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep and note that, by WP:WHEN, novels and films are self-sourcing for their plots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely useless article, could be summarized in a sentence or two tops in F#'s main article.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note Wikipedia:USELESS as a weak argument for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of trivia without thesis. Nothing reliable to merge back. Any notable appearances can be mentioned in the work of fiction, not this dumping ground. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had a thesis, wouldn't it be original research? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreliable trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't know that a Wikipedia article needed a thesis. The theme or major setting or significant plot elements used in notable works is notable, and collecting them together here is a reasonable way to do an article. A thesis is for OR, and if it had one it would be OR. This isn't, just the collection and summarizing. Anythingthought unreliable can be sourced or deleted--those are editing questions. DGG (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate. I would support an article based on scholarly sources that collate and find patterns in the use of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture. As it is, we don't have any information, just data, and the article is an attractive nuisance — inexperienced editors see articles like this one, think of some similar trivia they know of firsthand, and just pile it on, regardless of how encyclopedic it is or how much original research their additions are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I think inexperienced editors make problematic edits to all sorts of articles and if we deleted for that reason we would have to delete article like George W. Bush that also attract bias or vandalism and so on. The solution there is to more aggresively educate new editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture has been covered by academic (not just reliable) sources: See, e.g., Fibonacci Numbers and The Golden Section in Art, Architecture and Music, which lists a number of such sources. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (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.