Jump to content

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

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. Majorly (hot!) 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians in popular culture (2nd nomination)[edit]

Librarians in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion back in october, the result was: "Keep, nomination withdrawn". Only two arguments were put forward: that the list was useful, and that the Category:In popular culture exists to "keep the crap this out of the main articles". Furthermore, the debate was closed by a non-admin other than the one who nominated the page. This page is an indiscriminate list of librarians in popular culture, completely unmaintainable. Usefulness is not an inclusion criteria. Putting the trivia and unencyclopedic stuff in an article of its own does not make it any less encyclopedic.

Dr bab 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Ah, In Popular Culture, we meet again. Once more, there's another article about X in popular culture and once more, it consists basically entirely of an unreferenced catalog of virtually any mention of someone, or something, being, playing, seeing, doing, acting like, mentioning, or talking about, X. This is not the purpose of an in popular culture article. They are not meant to be the garbage heap of Wikipedia, where we throw all the unreferenced gibberish that drags down other articles - they are supposed to be encyclopedic articles about the portrayal of something in popular culture; NOT a pile of unreferenced trivia. --Haemo 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was goung to say keep it for inclusiveness, but Haemo and Dr bab's arguments make sense to me. But the references are amusing. Perhaps someone can move them to an ALA wiki page that would be easy for people to maintain. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as indiscriminate as it gets. "World of Warcraft features several librarian characters"? "Questionable Content is another webcomic that recently began featuring a character who works in an academic library setting"? "Debbie gets friendly with a librarian in Debbie Does Dallas (1978)"? Krimpet (talk/review) 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indiscriminate nomination. With respect to WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, I'm having trouble seeing how this nom doesn't apply to the whole category or other article sections spread throughout WP. Although this list is not encyclopedic (or complete) in the traditional sense, to me it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses -- and I'd hate to see it go ahead of similar pieces. --John Hubbard 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Librarian, and author of the linked Librarians: We're Not What You Think site, which some of this article's text is taken from.)[reply]
    • Comment Several of the In popular culture articles are probably good candidates for deletion. That they exist is not an argument that we should keep this one too. Dr bab 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment I give credit to John Hubbard for revealing his identity and his connection to the contents of the article. As I edit various pages here, I have noticed a definite pattern of page editing by top members of the American Library Association who do so anonymously, and by using sock puppets, and in a biased fashion. So to see librarian John Hubbard announce his identity and his interests is quite refreshing. Perhaps, to reward such behavior, this page could be put on a slow deletion timeline in respect of his interests and openness. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First the nominator did not recommend improving the article, or engage in any discussion to that effect with the authors, it should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap. This one is not total crap. It is actually useful. If it was improved upon it would be even more useful. If wikipedia has popular culture articles in regard to profesions, which it does, there is no reason to think that this one should be deleted more or less than any other on the basis of the aforementioned positions. Keep for utility, keep for improvement, and keep because nominating to delete an article that just needs improvement is wrong. The article is also encyclopedic, in that diderot had literary references (some even popular) to professions in the encyclopedia, as did the classic britannica. --Buridan 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am sorry if you feel I should have "engaged in discussion" with the authors before nominating an article that is "not total crap". I am of the opinion that this article really is unsalvageable. It is a completely indiscriminate list of appearances, mentions etc. of librarians in all sorts of media. Please note that usefulness is not an inclusion criteria, nor is the existence of other "Popular culture" articles in worse state than this one. Dr bab 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment The list is notable, it is encyclopedic. It needs improvement, not deletion. We disagree as to whether it is 'total crap'. --Buridan 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - first of all, this is an article, not a list. Part of the fundamental problem with these kind of articles is that they are treated like lists, when they are not. Either actually bother to write an article about the topic in popular culture, or make it an actual list, so it can be deleted for being indiscriminate on that basis. Furthermore, I have no idea what it means for a "list" to be "notable", but I'm sure it's not an inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the arguments WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not arguments for inclusion. This article has been around for a long time, so you really have no excuse for not referencing and improving it. You still have until this AFD ends to do it, so I suggest you trim all the unreferenced, or WP:OR, material and then comment here so people can re-evaluate how it's going in the mean-time. --Haemo 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment why don't you just dig out the citations instead of cutting it? why don't you want to improve the article? it is notable because it describes a notable profession in a significant context. --Buridan 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - why don't I dig out the citations? It's not my job or something to root around for citations for an article - that's the job of people who want to keep this article. I did my good faith best to look around for some WP:RS for this article. I couldn't find any. I'm sorry, but that's just it. If you want to keep this article, then ensure that it meets WP:ATT - don't toss the burden onto other people. Furthermore, you still aren't making any sense - you claim this article is notable? What? First of all, that's not the reason for deletion - there is no doubt that being a librarian is a notable profession. However, even articles about something notable that completely fail WP:ATT get deleted. What you have is a collection of apparently unsource-able trivia - since neither I, or I assume, you, can find sources to back them up - yet you argue against deletion because "this article is notable". I'm sorry, but that ain't in the Wikipedia policies, and admins are empowered to disregard WP:AFD arguments not based - or in this case, pointedly contrary - to stated policy. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment This article is not a list, but it is still a 'listing', and might as well be named list of librarians in popular culture. If the article should be improved to an acceptable form, it would mean to cut away everything that is there now, as listcruft, and write a completely new article, that is actually an article, and not a list. If everything is to be cut, I say delete the article and leave the space empty until someone that cares about the subject (and there appear to be at least a couple) takes the time and effort to create a good, non-list article.Dr bab 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't think that improving this article means throwing away the content: generally, if you're suggesting just 'getting rid of' content, you're not really trying to improve what you've got to work with. What the list *could* stand is a bit more meta-organization, and a bit of clarification w.r.t. the utility of the text. There's a lot of useful stuff collected together, here, and someone just needs to retroactively make some sense of it. Strong Keep, as the person nominating it for deletion has not done due diligence. --elijahwright 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment User: elijahwright has made a single edit outside this debate.Dr bab 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment I don't understand this obsession with how people arguing that this article does not meet standards are throwing away content, or are "refusing to help out" or "aren't doing due dilligence". First of all, people in AFD's are not required to do any of those things. Furthermore, if it's so easy to find sources, then why haven't any of the people arguing for keeping this article done that. I know I have - I looked for sources for many of the facts, and came up empty-handed. It really makes me upset when people start arguing that I haven't done any work, or am not trying to improve the encyclopedia. I work hard when I try to comment on an AFD, and it's totally contrary to WP:AGF to assert otherwise. As it stands, you're trying to keep this article because the people arguing that it fails WP:ATT haven't tried to improve this article. Not only is that patently untrue, and violates Wikipedia policy, but it's totally offensive. This is not an argument for inclusion - and it's vastly offensive to me, personally, and surely to other editors who are being tarred with the same insulting brush. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all just get along like true wikipedians? Whether the article stays or goes, it can be discussed in a civil fashion. No? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Hubbard, "it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses." It could just use a little cleaning up.Sils660 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' - what? This doesn't even make sense. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of material, and it's certainly not a collection of article which fail WP:ATT. Your argument is a pointed example of WP:ILIKEIT. --Haemo
  • KEEP! What harm is it doing to have this wiki up on the website? In fact, it is a great way to share with people just how prominent librarians are in the world since we often have the misfortune (and sometimes fortune) of disappearing behind the scenes. The whole purpose of a wiki is to assemble information for people to find easily - indexing the instances where librarians come up in pop culture is both fun and enlightening. If you feel left out, go start an "engineerss in popular culture" page or something. That could be fun, too.
    • Comment - So, in other words it's WP:ILIKEIT] coupled with an insulting claim that people are arguing against keeping an article people they "feel left out". That's ridiculous and offensive. The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect information - however, that information must be reliable and meet WP:ATT. This article does neither - which is the entire rationale behind deletion - not whatever sort of insulting jealousy you've decided to attribute to me instead. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment fixing WP:ATT is easy, just do it. --Buridan 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - I can't - that's the whole point! I've looked for WP:RS for this article, and I can't find any. If it's so easy, then why don't you be bold and do it? --Haemo 00:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are valid arguments. In addition, it seems, like Haemo pointed out, that some of them seems to be of the impression that the responsibility of fixing this article lies with the nominator, and the other people voting for deletion. This is false. Dr bab 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • VERY SUPER DUPER HIGH TENSILE STRENGTH REALLY STRONG DELETE: After evaluation of the argument above, the KEEPers are unpersuasive. The DELETEers are guided by and following Wiki policy. Wiki policy is the guide to follow. In this case, Wiki policy supports the deletion of this random list.
By the way, one of the five places to "visit" in the "Blues Clues" computer game for children is a library. Anyone want to add that fact to the list? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just a plain keep. If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above. The role of librarians in popular culture is particularly interesting to most librarians, who generally think of most of it as denigrating their professional status. The attempts to compensate for this are similarly interesting. non-librarians also find this of interest, as shown by the frequency they use the role as a symbol. This does not mean the article should be kept because it is interesting. It means , that because it is found interesting, notable works have been written using it as main or subsidiary theme, notable characters created, and the appropriateness of them all have been notably discussed--in a great variety of media and a great variety of sources. A summary page like this is appropriate. It isn't OR because the material is either supported by the main WP article on the book or film or whatever, or else is sourced. DGG 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am not opposed to an article that discuss the role of the librarian in popular culture, if it was properly sourced and not original research. The main reason I am opposed to this article in its current form is that it is a totally indiscriminate list, the number of times a librarian figures in any form of media is ridiculously large, and attempting to list them all is just futile. I know I keep repeating myself, but I can't see how this article should not be deleted based on WP:NOT#IINFO. If we keep this article/list, wouldn't it also mean that we open for similar lists that list every single appearance in popular media of composers, firefighters, policemen, lumberjacks, carpenters, cooks etc.? Dr bab 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment of course, it is not an indiscriminate list at all. There is also no reason not to have the other accounts of professions in popular culture, monty python's lumberjack skit for instance, is surely popular culture, as is the story of paul bunyan. The discriminates here are two categories which is librarians and popular culture. That for instance removed the references to librarians in unpopular subcultures, such as wikipedia editors;) --Buridan 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The function of such 'popular culture' articles (and sections), is to provide a place for people to put indiscriminate information, with which they might clutter up genuine articles. In other words they are a defence mechanism against a variety of quasi-spam. It may well be that such articles need to be pruned occasionally, but they serve a useful purpose in protecting serious content from being diluted with mundane and irrelevant allusions. Peterkingiron 16:04, 22 April 2007 (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/Librarians_in_popular_culture_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069495567"