Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future 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   no consensus. The WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA delete arguments were strong, and the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL keep responses were weak. On the other hand, the argument that the topic itself was in principle notable and could be well sourced (interestingly, made by both "delete" and "keep" !voters), was also strong. I caution that if this article comes to AfD again in a few months, and still consists of essentially random trivial references to Back to the Future, the argument to delete would be much stronger. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Future in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Necessarily trivia, fancruft/listcruft, and possibly WP:OR as a synthesis of material. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What this needs is someone with sound editorial judgment to trim it down to a much more reasonable size, leaving only matters of genuine interest (and yes there are some). Then merge it to Back to the Future (film series).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This will not work. Trying to put the useful parts (not that any of it is good, IMHO) back in the main article will only open the door to people adding useless junk in the list eventually. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge: I agree that some of the contents would make a viable section in the Back to the Future (film series) article, but only those can be shown to be notable with WP:RS (there are some - sorry I don't have the spare time to go through them all and check). -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The only reason why I created this "in popular culture" article is to remove this junk from the "(film series)" article. I hate so much these useless material. So, yes, delete the article, but do not move its unencyclopedic content back in the article(s) -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A well written section in prose explaining how the film has been received in popular culture would be appropriate in the Back to the Future article, but one wouldn't need this material to do that. What is presented here is a laundry list of trivial name-drops mostly compiled through original research.  None of it is cited, and none of it is directly relevant to the topic of Back to the Future.  Even if the topic was notable, the article would have to be rewritten from the ground up to comply with our policies and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, etc).  Them  From  Space  23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim and keep considering that the Back to the Future definitely had an impact on popculture, a prose article should be able to be written on the topic. The list is crufty though. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Into the Back to the Future article. Warrah (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Is a good article that gives lots of great examples. Dew Kane (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well kept article and many examples on its page. Str8cash (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Back to the Future (film series) and have a section there based on reliable sources. This article is problematic in content because of the unrelated facts.  It is more direct to say that Back to the Future has been cited in film, television, etc. rather than list every instance.  Google Books shows the possibility of writing about the films and popular culture in an an academic lens.  I don't know if it could sustain itself as a stand-alone article, so we should start at the film series article and spin off a sub-article if necessary. Erik (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you remove the unrelated facts, people will put them back in eventually leading to endless edits and possible revert wars. Moving this into a main article is opening a can of worms. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a merge; I agree that the content is trivia. When I recommend the existence of a section, I mean one that talks about the films' role in popular culture.  For example, this says, "The Back to the Future trilogy is among a group of self-reflexive metahistorical 1980s films... in which reshaping the past alters subsequent history and time-travel provides solutions for future problems."  This says, "The Back to the Future... movies also make effective (and underappreciated) use of [time travel] paradoxes."  This kind of content is what the section should have.  It could even be called "Cultural impact" instead to move away from the trivia mentality of "in popular culture" sections and articles.  I personally find that the stronger the overall article is, the less likely that editors will contribute trivia.  They tend to do this for underdeveloped articles, but a section like Fight Club (film) – Cultural impact has stood strong despite its circa-2006 presentation of a lot of trivia. Erik (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please present an argument to keep? Plain votes are not usually counted. Erik (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this article has insufficient third person sources to justify notabilliy Dwanyewest (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there any set standards we apply to these popular culture articles? I know we have many of them, but I haven't opined on many in AfDs that I can recall (the only I can recall is Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (3rd nomination))?  I found the essay WP:POPCULTURE to be useful, but these articles would seem to always pit those who think such lists are "amazing and cool" vs. those who bristle at them as unsourced amalgamations of "cruft".  And both sides are right.--Milowent (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is in principle notable - I don't think anyone's arguing BTTF didn't have a massive pop culture impact - it's just that the article content sucks. So I've attempt to improve it.  As of this posting I have just trimmed the article, deleting the most obvious original research and passing references.  What needs to be done now is for each remaining entity to be re-written to show why this popular culture reference is significant, and what it says about the impact of the film.  I've done a (not perfect, but workable) example for the Burnout Paradise reference.  Sources wouldn't hurt, either, although per WP:V they're not strictly necessary for this kind of thing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if it makes a difference to anyone, it's on my watchlist now and I intend to make an effort to stop the fancruft from re-accumulating. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per DustFormsWords.--Milowent (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.    I do not see any problem with OR--the devision about whether or not to include material is always a matter of editorial discretion, but we do not call that OR. Without using that sort of judgment, we could never write an article.    DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference, I don't know about anyone else, but when I mentioned OR it was stuff like this: . "In the American version of Life on Mars, Sam Tyler calls himself first "Luke Tyler" and then "Luke Skywalker" in a manner similar to Marty's chosen alias of "Clint Eastwood" (indeed, the circumstances are similar, too)."  The leap from "this circumstance is a bit like BTTF" to "this is a reference to BTTF" isn't indisputable and obvious, so without a source from one of the show creators saying, "Yeah, this was a nod to BTTF", it's original research. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.