Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Librarians in popular culture (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Otto4711 (talk | contribs)
59,599 edits
Line 9: Line 9:
*'''Delete''' as another in an unfortunately seemingly never-ending bunch of "articles" that are nothing but "spot the reference and run to the computer" trivia lists. [[WP:NOT#IINFO]], [[WP:NOT#DIR]], [[WP:TRIVIA]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as another in an unfortunately seemingly never-ending bunch of "articles" that are nothing but "spot the reference and run to the computer" trivia lists. [[WP:NOT#IINFO]], [[WP:NOT#DIR]], [[WP:TRIVIA]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as the article already passed two AfDs, is well-organized, and contains both references and external links that demonstrate verfiability and the existence of reliable secondary sources about the topic. Improve yes, but no real need to delete. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as the article already passed two AfDs, is well-organized, and contains both references and external links that demonstrate verfiability and the existence of reliable secondary sources about the topic. Improve yes, but no real need to delete. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
**'''Delete''' the number of afds does not matter. What does matter is the fact that over 85% of this article fails [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NOT]]. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the number of afds does not matter. What does matter is the fact that over 85% of this article fails [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NOT]]. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Solidly notable, just needs improvement. it is not trivial, as claimed. every time you nominate it,it just gets better. feel free to go dig up the reliable sources on these too, that is just needs improvement. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Solidly notable, just needs improvement. it is not trivial, as claimed. every time you nominate it,it just gets better. feel free to go dig up the reliable sources on these too, that is just needs improvement. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Needs sourcing but is a totally decent article. Has plenty of secondary sources and is not just a list or a collection of trivia. [[User:Jessamyn|Jessamyn]] ([[User talk:Jessamyn|talk]]) 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Needs sourcing but is a totally decent article. Has plenty of secondary sources and is not just a list or a collection of trivia. [[User:Jessamyn|Jessamyn]] ([[User talk:Jessamyn|talk]]) 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The unfortunate traditional image of librarians in pc. is notable, and worth discussing, and there are more than enough sources for a general discussion to be added. The individual items are most of them notable, though there should be some sorting out of the ones that are about libraries rather than librarians. We discussed this sufficiently in april, when it was a keep--a keep at a time when most articles of this sort that were challenged were not kept, as compared to now. Some of the comments above seem to imply that no articles of this sort can ever be encyclopedic; this is a fringe view, and there is no policy to support that. Other arguments say that a specific item is not appropriate. That's for editing. To delete lists because individual items are erroneous is a essentially to delete all lists--which, once more, is opposed to WP policy. One of the !delete comments is that a better article could be made, to which the WP policy response is sodoit. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The unfortunate traditional image of librarians in pc. is notable, and worth discussing, and there are more than enough sources for a general discussion to be added. The individual items are most of them notable, though there should be some sorting out of the ones that are about libraries rather than librarians. We discussed this sufficiently in april, when it was a keep--a keep at a time when most articles of this sort that were challenged were not kept, as compared to now. Some of the comments above seem to imply that no articles of this sort can ever be encyclopedic; this is a fringe view, and there is no policy to support that. Other arguments say that a specific item is not appropriate. That's for editing. To delete lists because individual items are erroneous is a essentially to delete all lists--which, once more, is opposed to WP policy. One of the !delete comments is that a better article could be made, to which the WP policy response is sodoit. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
**Ok I'll change my vote to '''Weak Keep''' (not because I want to improve the article directly but because I want to cite WP:SOFIXIT next time with a clear conscience) Maintainers of this article, I will give you three references, you do the rest. If you don't, the article gets deleted. I'm coming from a different background so you're on your own here. [http://wings.buffalo.edu/publications/mcjrnl/v1n1/image.html a journal article], [http://www.librarian-image.net/img07/ a SLA association talk], and [http://wotan.liu.edu/dois/data/Articles/julhmoogey:2002:i:78:p:97-111.html an abstract]--[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; background: white; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 05:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:*Ok I'll change my vote to '''Weak Keep''' (not because I want to improve the article directly but because I want to cite WP:SOFIXIT next time with a clear conscience) Maintainers of this article, I will give you three references, you do the rest. If you don't, the article gets deleted. I'm coming from a different background so you're on your own here. [http://wings.buffalo.edu/publications/mcjrnl/v1n1/image.html a journal article], [http://www.librarian-image.net/img07/ a SLA association talk], and [http://wotan.liu.edu/dois/data/Articles/julhmoogey:2002:i:78:p:97-111.html an abstract]--[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; background: white; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 05:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:*''We discussed this sufficiently in April'' - let's look at the arguments advanced in April:
::*"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." IOW, [[WP:WAX]] and [[WP:ILIKEIT]] coupled with a total disregard for the policy objections;
::*"[T]he article...should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap." There is no basis in policy for this opinion;
::*"If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above." Completely meaningless argument;
::*"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." Which is flat-out [[WP:BHTT|not true]].
:*Along with the customary claims of notability with nothing offered to back it up and the usual earnest protestations that the article can and will be cleaned up, only to find that six months later the article is in even worse shape than it was before. Not to mention the simple fact that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. The keep arguments were poor then, they are poor now. The article was terrible then and it's terrible now. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This is a list of films and television shows which have librarians in them. It provides little to nothing in the way of encyclopedic context and is wholly based on original research. [[User:RFerreira|RFerreira]] 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This is a list of films and television shows which have librarians in them. It provides little to nothing in the way of encyclopedic context and is wholly based on original research. [[User:RFerreira|RFerreira]] 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletions]]. </small> <small>-- [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletions]]. </small> <small>-- [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 17:07, 15 October 2007

Librarians in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Librarians in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information Will (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If info such as "Debbie gets friendly with a librarian in Debbie Does Dallas (1978)" isn't indiscriminate, loosely associated OR, I don't know what is. Totally unencylopedic. Spellcast 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although a good article on the portrayal of librarians could be written, this one isn't it. It's heavy on original research, and like the stereotypical IPC article, it's a list of occasions where someone saw a librarian on television or on a movie screen. Shhhh!!!! Mandsford 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like a list rather than a discussion of Librarians in popular culture. I hope they could make a Librarians IPC article like this one. This one was Afd'd as well but survived with flying colors.--Lenticel (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another in an unfortunately seemingly never-ending bunch of "articles" that are nothing but "spot the reference and run to the computer" trivia lists. WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article already passed two AfDs, is well-organized, and contains both references and external links that demonstrate verfiability and the existence of reliable secondary sources about the topic. Improve yes, but no real need to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the number of afds does not matter. What does matter is the fact that over 85% of this article fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Solidly notable, just needs improvement. it is not trivial, as claimed. every time you nominate it,it just gets better. feel free to go dig up the reliable sources on these too, that is just needs improvement. --Buridan 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs sourcing but is a totally decent article. Has plenty of secondary sources and is not just a list or a collection of trivia. Jessamyn (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The unfortunate traditional image of librarians in pc. is notable, and worth discussing, and there are more than enough sources for a general discussion to be added. The individual items are most of them notable, though there should be some sorting out of the ones that are about libraries rather than librarians. We discussed this sufficiently in april, when it was a keep--a keep at a time when most articles of this sort that were challenged were not kept, as compared to now. Some of the comments above seem to imply that no articles of this sort can ever be encyclopedic; this is a fringe view, and there is no policy to support that. Other arguments say that a specific item is not appropriate. That's for editing. To delete lists because individual items are erroneous is a essentially to delete all lists--which, once more, is opposed to WP policy. One of the !delete comments is that a better article could be made, to which the WP policy response is sodoit. DGG (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I'll change my vote to Weak Keep (not because I want to improve the article directly but because I want to cite WP:SOFIXIT next time with a clear conscience) Maintainers of this article, I will give you three references, you do the rest. If you don't, the article gets deleted. I'm coming from a different background so you're on your own here. a journal article, a SLA association talk, and an abstract--Lenticel (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We discussed this sufficiently in April - let's look at the arguments advanced in April:
  • "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." IOW, WP:WAX and WP:ILIKEIT coupled with a total disregard for the policy objections;
  • "[T]he article...should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap." There is no basis in policy for this opinion;
  • "If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above." Completely meaningless argument;
  • "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." Which is flat-out not true.
  • Along with the customary claims of notability with nothing offered to back it up and the usual earnest protestations that the article can and will be cleaned up, only to find that six months later the article is in even worse shape than it was before. Not to mention the simple fact that consensus can change. The keep arguments were poor then, they are poor now. The article was terrible then and it's terrible now. Otto4711 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a list of films and television shows which have librarians in them. It provides little to nothing in the way of encyclopedic context and is wholly based on original research. RFerreira 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy delete via WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Xihr 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unqualified disaster of random, unverified factoids. Raymond Arritt 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article should be improved through regular editing. I haven't read anything that suggests that this article can't be improved and, in fact, references have been unearthed to assist in sourcing material. I have a friend who's a librarian - he's cool and his geeky brain probably knows all this stuff but I have wikipedia to turn to to find it as well as answer so many other questions. Benjiboi 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular editing" would be to delete all of the "this one time I saw a liberrian in a movie" references, which would leave, well, nothing. Otto4711 13:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that would be editing for otto's empty encyclopedia. for wikipedia, on the other hand, notable and verifiable matter. these are verifiable, these are notable, they could use some more citations and perhaps a bit of trimming or perhaps just a massive expansion. --Buridan 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm sorry, but it is not notable in the slightest that, for instance, In A Very Brady Sequel, Roy Martin (Tim Matheson) informs Greg Brady (Christopher Daniel Barnes) that he should date someone more of his "own speed", suggesting a librarian as an example. Otto4711 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • here again you choose one weakest example, why not choose a stronger example to build your strawman? why not use say neal stephenson's librarian which is clearly notable as a model of google earth and is just lacking citations. or perhaps any other of the notable ones. That you can find listcruft in any list is not surprising.... it just means it needs marked for cleanup. afd is not a process to foce cleanup. --Buridan 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an encyclopedia, not a book of trivia. --B 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is trivial to one person can certainly be encyclopedic to another. let's hope other editors have the good will and grace to save whatever trivial information you find of interest for when you look to wikipedia for answers and inspiration. Benjiboi 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really nothing more than an emotional appeal to the discredited argument that Wikipedia should be about everything. Wikipedia is not, and is not designed to be, about everything. Otto4711 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, but it is supposed to be about all knowledge... this contains notable knowledge.--Buridan 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list of random librarian appearances. Otto4711's got it right when he says "this one time I saw a liberrian in a movie". 138.88.170.131 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Librarians_in_popular_culture_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=164750349"