Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genghis Khan 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. (non-admin closure) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan 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)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is just a glorified disambiguation page. Fails WP:IPCA criteria for making popular culture articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Popular culture, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every entry is bluelinked, which is what happens with a well-curated list of notable entries. "Just a glorified DAB" is far more of an original complaint than it is a policy-based one. WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:IPCA is unhelpful--I seriously can't even tell what the nom is complaining about. This is a new split, so the ATD is to merge back into the Genghis Khan article: a WP:SS child is not to be split out just to be excised. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a properly done popular culture article is Titanic in popular culture, of which most is prose. Per WP:IPCEXAMPLES, "A litany of innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow – to the point that they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance." It does not seem like most of the entries here have had lasting significance, with the list not differentiating between minor or major, or placing anything in context. I should note that while it is "technically an essay", WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the relevant actual guideline here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question What sources are there on the overarching topic of this article—Genghis Khan in popular culture? We have plenty of proper prose articles on X in fiction/popular culture/whatever—see e.g. Immortality in fiction, Mars in fiction, Genies in popular culture, Eco-terrorism in fiction, Loch Ness Monster in popular culture, and Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture—but those are written based on proper secondary/tertiary sources on the topic at hand, not mere TV Tropes-style lists of examples. TompaDompa (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's WP:OR/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/WP:IPC typical violation that plagues many if not most 'in popular culture' articles. An indiscrimiante attempt to make a TV-Tropes like list of 'all works that mention Genghis Khan' without even listing a single reference that dicusses this. My BEFORE did not throw out anything great to resceue this, unfortunately, so I cannot even suggest a 'TNT and rewrite with this source' approach. Just TNT then, I guess - redirecting to seemingly better Genghis_Khan#Cultural_depictions (or maybe its 'In_modern_culture' subsection) might be best for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was spun out from Genghis Khan as part of a push to get that article to GA and FA status. Thus, any solution which isn't simply merging back into the main article would work. Thank you, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a recurring issue. As the essay WP:CARGO points out, Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. The proper course of action is to remove the content outright per MOS:POPCULT. TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was just listing notable films, books, and other media about him, that'd be one thing. But mentioning every time he was even briefly mentioned, even just by name in a comedy parody such as The Private Life of Genghis Khan, I see no point to. We have Category:Cultural depictions of Genghis Khan. Dream Focus 17:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in its current form, this does seem like it largely duplicates Genghis Khan (disambiguation). But I don't see a compelling reason this has to be deleted, and (with effort) it could become a better article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How could it become a better article? What sources are there to do that? TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hope Springs Eternal? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if this is a disambig. page or a list article, but it is helpful for redirecting people to multiple pages on the subject in the title, i.e. Genghis Khan in popular culture. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The disambiguation page already exists at Genghis Khan (disambiguation). Are you proposing this be redirected there? TompaDompa (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a content fork. I think it needs to be fixed by removing some items from the disambig. page and by making link from disambig. to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. The dab page is for things named Ghengis Khan, period, not things related to him. I've actually demoted some entries there to the See also section. Some of those could be added to this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular figure. The article is warranted. Though information needs to be sourced. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential delete -- At one time many articles had a "popular culture", which hosted trivia about the subject. My fear is that this is another case of what was banned long ago. This might have merit as a list article, but do we need that? Or should it survive as List of works about Genghis Khan? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Serves navigational purposes, and this guy is clearly pretty popular in culture! –small jars tc 08:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs directly addressing his place in popular culture to the lede, hopefully bringing the article to bare NLIST on top of navigational value. small jars tc 11:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources ([1][2]) are by no means the kind of sources to base an article like this on. TompaDompa (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you right, it will be enough to say that a result of NLIST's focus on the group over the items is that sources that show notability are often not the ones to use as a basis for the body of the article. small jars tc 05:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find your reply a bit difficult to parse, but those sources are not on the topic of Genghis Khan in popular culture. The first is on Genghis Khan's legacy in the modern era, and the second is about a dish bearing his name. TompaDompa (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources describe the tendency for people to name stuff after him for his cultural associations. That seems to fall under the topic of popular culture to me. Is media the only kind of popular culture we should cover? small jars tc 06:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a list of things named after Genghis Khan, which would be something completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we include every example of the tendency, but if it's discussed in terms of culture by multiple sources, I think it bears mentioning in this article and lends it notability. "Popular culture" is a pretty vague term though, and I'm not sure that the standard interpretation on Wikipedia is as general as mine. In any case, there are RSes directly addressing Genghis Khan in media too. [3] small jars tc 13:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it's important to go by sources on the overarching topic—Genghis Khan in popular culture—and use the scope they use lest we WP:SYNTHESIZE a scope that is original to Wikipedia. We can't start by assuming a topic like this should have a particular scope and then go looking for sources that cover the aspects we think should be included if sources on the overarching topic don't treat it like that. That being said, the source you linked above looks promising, at least at a cursory glance. If there are more sources like that, we could probably use them to write a decent article—but we would have to fit the topic and scope of the article to the sources, and it doesn't seem like it would end up being as expansive as has been suggested here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:LISTN providing information and navigation for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genghis Khan has had far reaching global cultural impact. His main article if over 100K in size, and I dont follow how this fails WP:IPCA. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ENTIRELY ok per WP:IPCA criteria for making popular culture articles. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable as a subject on its own. Capitals00 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 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.