Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Explosion in popular culture

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. Several sources were proposed, several editors found them sufficient to demonstrate notability, and no one disputed this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Explosion in popular culture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced piece of WP:OR (just four footnotes) that fails also WP:GNG, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES. My BEFORE does not suggest that the concept of "Halifax Explosion in popular culture" exists outside Wikipedia and what we have here is a prosified version of the all too common list of media that mention topic foo. Seems like this article was spun off from Halifax_Explosion#Legacy section while it was being improved for GA/FA and has been forgotten since. Redirecting it back there might be a fine WP:ATD. Bottom line, while some works mention this concept, this is not a topic that merits a stand-alone articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic does not exist outside of Wikipedia and I could find nothing in a google search. This article has no reason to exist. It also fails basic GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems someone knew the topic wouldn't pass WP:NLIST so they put it in paragraph form. Still completely non-notable and doesn't pass GNG since there doesn't seem to be any source anywhere discussing the explosion in the context of culture. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a notable topic; it still resonates over a century later. I've read some of the books. In particular, Hugh MacLennan's novel, Barometer Rising, is a Canadian classic.

This article is not WP:OR. As for citations, most of items are blue wikilinks to notable books and films with their own articles; I see no need to footnote them. The few works that don't have existing articles can be cited or ditched -- that's a matter of cleanup.

I reviewed WP:NOTTVTROPES. The site is described as "a wiki that lists plot devices, tropes, and the like in all manner of fiction." The essay (not a guideline) then describes 12 characteristics that set TV Tropes aside from Wikipedia; I don't see this article matching any of the 12.

I reviewed our "In popular culture" content essay ("WP:IPC"). In the first paragraph, it notes: "When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short. That's exactly what was done here. There's also a specific section, "Creating 'In popular culture' articles" ("WP:IPCA").

The WP:IPC essay makes a good point that the phrase "popular culture" in an article title or section heading is a poor word choice and encourages the addition of cruft and trivia. Better titles would be "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion".

I reviewed MOS:TRIVIA. This material doesn't look trivial after reading that essay. Compare this article with the trivia example cited in the guideline; this article is very different and qualitatively better.

With regards to the earlier comment above that this is a disguised list, MOS:TRIVIA states "As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears."

So the question for me is not one of notability but rather: one article or two?

Delete and redirect to Halifax Explosion
- We lose useful, reliable content
Keep this article
Merge with Halifax Explosion
- That reverses a decision made in producing a featured article. That's a non-starter for me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Regarding WP:OR and WP:GNG, yes, it is OR/not N because WP:SYNTH. No source cited discusses the concept of "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion". Compiling a prose-style de facto list of such references is SYNTH OR. Regarding spinning off, see WP:SPLIT which notes that this can be done "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia". Finally, re "We lose useful, reliable content" - see WP:USEFUL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also, to quote User:Rorshacma from a similar discussion, I think that This seems to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT, as the Haka article is not so long that a spinout would have really been needed, and most of the information here, including the links to the related full articles, is already present there. Low quality content was copied, not split from the main article, then somewhat (although I think not sufficiently) improved in the main article while the copy (discussed here) remains forgotten. Best solution is to redirect and try to improve the content in the Featured Article. If the section grows, we can split it off then, at near-FA levels. Trying to rewrite this forgotten spin off while the section at FA still needs help too is waste of effort. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, the overall topic of the article, "The Halifax Explosion in Popular Culture", does not appear to actually be a distinct topic that has received coverage in reliable sources. Halifax Explosion#Legacy already contains a well written description of the incident's impact, including discussion of several notable works, both fiction and non-fiction, on the topic. The works mentioned in this article that are not already discussed there, in fact, look to be mostly either non-notable works or of the "this thing mentioned it" variety. Neither the Halifax Explosion article as a whole, or the Legacy section in specific, are long enough that a separate article would either be needed or preferable for ease of reading. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the Halifax Explosion in popular culture has received coverage in reliable sources - see for example [1][2][3][4][5]. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s 5 solid refs from reliable sources directly addressing the effect of the explosion on literature - thanks!

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but sadly, WP:TNT applies. The current article is poorly referenced OR, we need to rewrite it from scratch based on cited sources. And the FA probably needs a FA review considering the section there likewise should be rewritten. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT is an essay, not a sufficient justification to delete a notable topic. Your assertion regarding FA review appears to be equally without merit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, the essay WP:TNT (“Blow it up and start over”) states ”Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up.”. Those cases do not apply here.

The definitive policy is the Deletion policy; it lists the allowable reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. This article doesn’t satisfy any of them.

Nikkimaria just provided 5 solid refs a few minutes ago about the explosion and literature. They more than address any lingering SYNTH and OR issues.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources do indicate that we can write an article on this topic. What we have here, however, is not it. The old OR synth with randon examples that the original writer or writers thought relevant need to be blanked, and replaced with the summary of the sources found. And since this is based on the nearly identical version in the main article, improvement should take place there, there is no need to split anything given how short this article (and the corresponding section) are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that draftification is also an option, as was done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination), though this is nowhere near as poor as that article. Curbon7 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 While this is prosified, other than that I think both article as just "as poor"... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Nikkimaria. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nikkimaria has provided RS that shows the explosion has relevance within popular culture, hence no reason for deletion. Meanderingbartender (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2023 (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.