Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keats 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 delete. John Keats is notable. John Keats in Popular Culture is only notable if there are sources that discuss John Keats in popular culture. The only offered source to this effect has been rebutted and the keep votes are mostly assertions and opinions rather then evidence based opinions founded on specific policies. Obvious if there are specific sources this can be revisited on my talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Keats in Popular Culture[edit]

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

A random grouping of references to (or maybe to) Keats in others' works ranging from the famous to various high school poetry reads. C'mon we're an encyclopedia not a concordance nor a citation index. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random list of indiscriminate trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Such lists are a clear demonstration of the individual's impact on our culture, and hence are notable sub-topics when sufficient citations are provided and the link between the separately notable item and the individual are clearly demonstrated. I view it like a listing series of awards won or reporting honorary doctorates granted.—RJH (talk)
Delete per nom. A random cluttering of tidbits and factoids without a central topic. A well-written summary of this material may be written in prose on the main article, but an indiscriminate listing of every time Keats has appeared in a work of media is unencyclopedic. Them From Space 18:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - disregarding the current ugly mess, it does list many significant references to Keats' work. These are the standards I see as developing for "X in pop culture" articles - (1) Are there several possible reliable sources pointing out that X has appeared or been used by popular culture? and (2) Do those sources mention that connection in a significant way? I think the answer is in the affirmative for both questions here. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I added a real lead. The title probably should be small p and c. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Needs improving but useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keeping this is an invitation to everything in popular culture. a list of what cites or alludes to what is not encyclopedic - like a list of every article that mentions Keats....etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only includes those presentations that are in works sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles. That's a very small subset of "everything". Objecting to an article because inappropriate content might be added is reason to delete the entire encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, unless sources can be cited that expressly treat the topic of the article. (Though it's not per se a reason for deletion, the article also seems to make no distinction between specifically popular-culture references and other sorts of references.) Deor (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep INFO does not affect this at all; the sources for the relevances are in the original articles --and, in many cases, are explicit in the quotations. Nothing more in the way of references are needed. As for the title, that can be adjusted. to John Keats in literature, film, music, etc., but popular culture is a useful abbreviation that seems perfectly well understood. Cf. the contents of the book at [1]. Any individual items that are inappropriate can be removed by editing, if necessary after a talk p. discussion. I removed one obvious one just now, for example. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the table of contents of the book you cited, DGG, I see the words "popular culture" in the title of an article that appears to be about Keats's drawing on popular tradition in his "Eve of St. Mark" fragment, not about appearances of Keats himself in subsequent popular culture. None of the other studies gathered therein seem relevant to this discussion, either. What exactly did you intend to convey by linking to that book? Deor (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an entire article of trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not meant as a host for trivia. All encyclopedic and/or notable mentions can be or already are in the main John Keats article. There is no need for the rest. Tavix | Talk 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into John Keats. "Popular culture" sections or daughter articles occur widely within Wikipedia, including in articles as diverse as Schrodingers Cat, island of Kythera, Yeats' poem Sailing to Byzantium, Lost Dutchman Mine. These help us understand how a particular trope has resounded through culture, and are therefore encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Also, nomination doesn't cite any policy-based reason and the argument that calls WP:IINFO smells unfortunately of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is a popular culture split article like anything else; nothing indiscriminate, or failing policy, and easily sourceable. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: simply a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of references to Keats. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vast majority is unsourced trivia - I was tempted to remove all the uncited, as none of its supporters are adding any citations at all. Is anyone going to cite the uncited? Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. Read deletion policy: whatever can be solved by editing is never a reason to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn - Please don't ever bother yourself linking me to worthless essays. If the content isn't soon cited there will only be a couple of lines left. Supporting uncited content is detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion policy is not a "worthless essay"; read it and read it well, please. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No its not, thats policy and nothing there supports the keeping of any uncited trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is impractical, and the most notable bits should be merged into the main article (if they haven't been already). —focus 05:00, 4 January 2011 (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.