Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular culture studies

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 and stubbify. This is an unusual AfD, in that the notability of the underlying topic is not in substantial dispute, even by the nominator, hence a rather unusual outcome. Many editors are in substantial agreement that the article in its current form is in extremely poor shape, has been for many years, and a reset would be the best way forward. It should be noted that, going forward, an AfD is not required for such a step to be taken. If editors believe portions are salvageable, the page history will remain accessible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture studies[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)

The topic is notable, but the article is an WP:ORish essay that merits either a WP:TNT or cutting down to bare bones (the lead), unless someone feels like rewriting this. It has been tagged as a "a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay" since 2010. No surprise, given it was indeed someone's ORish essay from 2004 ([1]). Over the years, it hasn't changed much - it has been wikified and slightly expanded, but it still is mostly unreferenced. Much of the content is not even on topic. The first section, "Traditional theories of popular culture", introduces three theories (with no indication which scholar or scholars think they are relevant to the topic, i.e. traditional theories of popculture). The first two subsections, about mass society and culture industry, don't even discuss popular culture. The problems continue through the article. It is a decent essay, but a terrible encyclopedic article (the title should be "anonymous editor musings on what they thought is meant by popculture studies"). In 20 years, it hasn't changed much. It's high time to blow this up, or at minimum, reduced to the lead section (and bibliography, which should be renamed to 'further reading'), and then expand with proper sources and an encyclopedic style (on that note, the article still uses the phrase "of course" twice...). PS. I hope nobody brings up the AFDNOTCLEANUP. This cannot be cleaned up, 20 years failed at that. It needs radical treatment (deletion of 99% of the content)±. This is why I bring this to AfD (I could just blank everything except the lead myself, but I think that would not be best practice...). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OP is correct that this article needs a major overhaul. It should be nominated at Articles for Improvement perhaps, but it clearly passes WP:GNG as there are countless mentions of the term across scholarly sources and otherwise. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the deletion rationale (original research), and articles on notable topics may still be deleted if the circumstaces demand it. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would deleting be better than wiping most of it and rewriting? According to WP:ATD, If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I think it's clear that editing can improve this article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper WP:TNT explains the other side of the coin. Although yes, in this case, I think a few sentences (the very lead) are rescuable. But as I said, I don't think it's fair to blank 99% of the article without a discussion (theoretically, according to Wikipedia rules, I could've just redirected this to popular culture, per WP:SOFTDEL, etc., but I also think that's not best practices), and AfD is IMHO the right venue to announce the intention to get rid of vast amount of content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To address the nominator's points more specifically, I think there is enough here to salvage the article in terms of trimming down to the lead, and perhaps a "History of the term" section. That would be easy enough, and I would be happy to do it, if the AfD tag is removed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper It's ok to attempt a major rewrite during an AfD, and I'd be happy to withdraw this AfD if I think the article has improved sufficiently. Otherwise I'd be happy to recommend draftification of this in your userspace, if you'd prefer not to do anything during an AfD. But withdrawing now risks the article not being changed, and this is not something I am prepared to do. From my perspective, by the time this AfD is finished, the article needs to be fixed, one way or another, and keeping it in the current version is not fixing it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 16:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and fix it. In time all things will be fixed. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks that this could be effectively stubbified or startified rather than nuked, go for it. As noted, it's a valid topic. I would suggest moving to draft in that case to gain a little leisure, unless surgery on the hoof is intended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly not ready for main space, with lots of tags dating back to 2010, and if somebody was going to fix it, they would have done so by now. Sandstein 08:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have Cultural studies which states that it includes popular culture. Perhaps it would be better to merge a small of this text there. Though, that page also needs work. --mikeu ^talk 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not terrible. AfD is not the place to discuss improving and article or otherwise fixin' it. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ghastly mess of OR that's been around for more than long enough for someone to improve it if they wanted to. Those offering could request restoration to draftspace, but I suspect that as usual the offers are merely token and if kept no actual work will take place; at most the article will be thrown in a maintenance category and left to fester for another 18 years. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2022 (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.