Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's cat in popular culture

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 a quantum superposition of keep & delete, which, on measurement, collapsed to keep. Non-admin close. JulesH 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Schrödinger's cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Jokes and trivial references. Nothing substantial worthy of an article. --Eyrian 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the editors on that talk page moved it off that page. If you want further discussion there the article will just be recreated. Stop ignoring consensus of the people who understand the topic. DreamGuy 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, culturecruft, and kinda sicko at that. Realkyhick 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - Trivia collection = WP:5 Corpx 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Absolutely no in-policy justification for deletion. All the people on a crusade to kill off any and all "in popular culture" articles with the idea that it should be integrated into the main article are causing a huge clusterfuck, where the people on the main articles say it doesn't belong there and move it out, and other people delete and move it back. In popular culture articles were created for a real, encyclopedic, full consensus and standard practice reason. Getting enough dive-by voters to say it should be deleted doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it back onto the main article. The fact of the matter is that articles are only supposed to be deleted if they CANNOT be cleaned up. An article on this topic can be encyclopedic without being merely a list of trivia. Instead of going around deleting things, EDIT for a change. You know, do some actual work to improve the encyclopedia instead of making some kneejerk, misinformed reaction that causes more problems and will eventually just lead to the article being recreated anyway. DreamGuy 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A guideline means "You should do this" not "Ignore me!" Will (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and what "guideline" do you think applies in this situation? No guideline is ignored, and it's the people calling for a delete that are ignoring deletion policy. DreamGuy 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... WP:TRIVIA? Will (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the thing, what it says, not what you mistakenly think or wish it says. DreamGuy 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIA says to get rid of lists and to source references, which can be done through rewriting. WP:TRIVIA does not give any sort of support to delete whole articles. DreamGuy 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit, not letter. Hell, TRIVIA is merely a conjuction of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Will (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can't be. An article cannot be constructed wholly from primary sources. This article offers little secondary analysis, which is what is required. Further, by being a massive distraction in trivial directions, the article serves only to make efforts to produce a good "culture" section more difficult. --Eyrian 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DreamGuy. Clean-up and sourcing required but science fiction use would appear to be a given and readily apparent - for instance Schrödinger's Cat trilogy. Canuckle 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it in a box and let it exist in a interminate state of whether it is deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only if the last two thirds are jettisoned - an actual sourced discussion of the cat and how the cat and/or the concept have been used in fiction is encyclopedic. A willy-nilly "ooh, Doctor Who said it, let me run to my computer and be the first to bung it in the article" list of trivial garbage is not. Keeping the article and the main article clear of this crap will require a commitment on editors' behalf so if you want this strongly kept then you should be prepared to take on some responsibility for patrolling the articles and keeping it out. If editors aren't willing to make that commitment then I say delete. Otto4711 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on its fellows. Golfcam 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok this one is tougher to decide since it has much more context to the subject to the contrary of many other. I say keep the lead and intro and remove/delete all the trivia crap below. Another option, can be to merge what it is not trivia crap to the parent article. Although considering the intro is unsourced the last option may be the best--JForget 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the question of whether this should be a separate article should be settled first by those working on the material. I do not want to delete without their prior consensus, because this is at heart an editing question. DGG (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As written it has some fixable issues, trivia, etc. (ok, needs lots of work) but it is noteworthy enough to justify an article. Pharmboy 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs some work, but perhaps of all X in "X in popular culture", this X is actually notable and worth having an article on it. I also have a concern that editors who decide to hive off this material to a separate article are being opposed by blanket notions of deleting all "X in popular culture" articles. This kind of catch 22 difference of opinion is getting too common. I agree with DGG. --Bduke 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first section, but delete the entire "Other assorted examples" since it's a laundry list of trivia. The first bit is what an "IPC" article should be (were it sourced). The rest is the exact opposite. --Haemo 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Schrödinger's cat in literature, source and get rid of all the non-notable ridiculousness crowding it. CaveatLectorTalk 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the first section: it looks good, but it's all OR. I mean, I agree with the analysis there, but if we're opening the gates, I've got some articles I'd like to spruce up with some theories of my own. --Eyrian 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the first 1/3 to Schrödinger's cat and delete this article. Only the first 1/3 has redeeming value, merge it to the main article; there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Schrödinger's cat article. There doesn't seem to be very much notable stuff in the article. I concede that some mention of the cat in popular culture needs to be made, but there just doesn't seem to be enough content for it's own article. --clpo13(talk) 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm [cough] in two minds over this one, as I usually feel that 'xyz in popular culture articles' should be merged back into their source. However, given the length and technical nature of Schrödinger's cat, as well as the abundant use of the idea in science fiction, a separate article seems plausible. The introduction forms an interesting survey, which should definitely not be deleted wherever it ends up, although references would be useful. The remainder is a collection of trivial non-encyclopedic information which should probably be deleted or at least heavily pruned, referenced and assimilated into the introductory prose. I'd agree with the idea of renaming as Schrödinger's cat in literature, Schrödinger's cat in science fiction or similar, which might help to reduce the accumulation of trivia. Espresso Addict 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • --tiny plastic Grey Knight ? 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the bad joke, couldn't resist! ;-) I agree with others here that we should reduce the wall of lists to a set of items of significant cultural impact, prosify the result, and then merge it back into the parent article as a section; the result should only be a couple of paragraphs long, I would think. As far as I can tell, the (entirely legitimate) stance of the editors that moved out this XIPC article in the first place was that it was too long and overwhelming. Therefore, this approach should be satisfactory. As an example of my "prosification" suggestion, rather than having a list of people (real or otherwise) with cats named "Schrödinger", have a sentence in one of the paragraphs running something like ""Schrödinger" remains a popular name for housecats, both those belonging to real people and in fiction[1][2]." I don't think anyone questions that the Cat is a well-known cultural icon, even outside academia, but screenfuls of lists of passing references isn't the way to go about writing that up (and moving the list into a list of footnotes[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121] isn't the right way either!). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the more intelligent of IPC articles, probably wouldn't be understood by someone who thinks this is about "cats in popular culture" Mandsford 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A useful article about popular culture with useful information. It may need a clean up, but that's all.--Tifaret 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tifaret, Mandsford, Everyking, Espresso Addict et al., but seriously trim it down to about half the cat (Hee hee). It is not all listcruft, and can be saved. Bearian 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per DreamGuy. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last half of your clarification was unneccesary. Canuckle 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete. There are no sources for the subject of "Schrödinger's cat in popular culture". I agree that the page isn't pure OR cruft, but still we have to draw the line somewhere, and I just happen to endorse a threshold of published secondary sources. —AldeBaer 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I actually found this page very interesting and useful. Aside from ILIKE it, it is a great split from the regular article to cover important social aspects of an important theory. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on another AfD: copying and pasting the same argument 26 times in 12 minutes Special:Contributions/Burntsauce (between 10:43 and 10:55) could lead to questions about whether your points are based on careful consideration. This AfD was just one of 8 you commented on within 60 seconds. Admirable speed-reading skills. Canuckle 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good call. And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill! Man, my fingers are tired. Mandsford 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10 PRINT KEEP
20 GOTO 10
REM Pharmboy 02:30, 28 July 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/Schrödinger%27s_cat_in_popular_culture&oldid=1087584174"