Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change 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. However, the discussion indicates that the article needs to be cleaned up and sourced; if this does not happen within a reasonable period of time, it would be appropriate to open a new AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate change in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very trivial list of mentions. Doesn't serve much purpose, except to be yet another "pop culture" cluttered list. RobJ1981 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article should probably be moved to "Global warming in popular culture", but it's a concise summation of fictional depictions of the "worst possible scenario". Mandsford 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. The topic has been the subject of non-trivial scholarly works. It can be made an article about the subject and keep a few of the most notable examples. Dbromage  [Talk]  02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal does not in any way indicate that the subject of "climate change in popular culture" has been the subject of any works. This is yet another directory of loosely associated topics looking to bring together any reference to something that even resembles climate change whether it takes place on Earth or not, along with stories which are not about climate change at all but are instead about superviallian plots to blow things up or use heat rays or whatever, and bangs them together to pretend that the list tells us anything remotely encyclopedic about climate change, the works listed or their relation to each other or the real world. Delete it. Otto4711 13:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to the relevant Global warming or Climate change. Several of these titles aren't even about climate change, and the ones that are can be detailed in the main articles. Crazysuit 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep why we should want to delete the article because a few of the items are wrong is something i cannot understand. if we get started that way, we'll end up with very few articles left. An absurd deletion criterion: Delete if the article has an error. WP, the encyclopedia with all very few articles perfect .DGG (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This of course does not answer the nominator's reasons for the AFD. Otto4711 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "trivial list"--trivial is a bald assertion, presumably meaning, sounds trivial to me, a version of Idontlikeit. Even "list"--this is not a list, but an article with short paragraph-length descriptions of each point.
 * "doesnt serve much purpose" WP articles are not intended to serve a purpose, in any practical sense, except in the intellectual sense of providing information . This does that.
 * "another popular culture cluttered list" Cluttered is an odd way of looking at what I would consider full of content, another pop culture list--well, yes, so it is, and, pop culture being notable, it should be kept.  So much for the nom. arguments. A few further arguments have been made:
 * "the mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal " That seems a misunderstanding, the words occur together not in the same issue of a journal but in each individual individual scholarly article, and while not all of the 1280 talk about it specifically, the titles and quotes from some of them clearly do. I think that those opposing these articles are not carefully considering either the articles or the evidence proposed to support them: " the scientific-policy debates surrounding climate change. ... El Niño became a part of the popular culture", "how this process was influenced by climate change. ... In popular culture this simple onward and upward view of human development", and most spectacularly "and then resonate with and through popular culture. ... concerns over environmental degradation, global warming, climate change and weapons of ... " (K Dodds - Progress in Human Geography, 2001). This is as clear a demonstration as could be asked for, and if you want to see the details, go read the article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But you see, as with so many of these trivia dumps, the article is not about "climate change in popular culture." It's just a list of supposed instances of it. Feel free to write an actual article about the topic if the sources you're citing are actually about the subject and not just instances of the words appearing together, but these lists of "look, over there, climate change on a TV show!" are not sound bases for encyclopedia articles. And as far as the claim that this isn't a list, of course it's a list. A list whose items consist of a couple of sentences each is no less a list. Why, you yourself have generated a list in your response just above, and your list items all consist of multiple sentences. The idea that a list of trivia is no less a list of trivia because it's not laid out in bullet points is ridiculous, and this list is in fact laid out in bullet points. It's form over function, style over substance, and the fact that a list looks somewhat non-listlike is not an excuse for keeping the list. Otto4711 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that an article about cultural influences can be in either list or paragraph format--or table, as a few of similar articles have been. it is not bullet points that make a list, but the presence of short items of information  --typically a sentence at the most,or an entry in a table. Whether or not bullets are used, this isnt a list. I mention this only because some have above & elsewhere used form as a criterion, under the mistaken idea that there is a rule against list or even deprecating them.
 * The real question is content, and the fact that the creators of one work make reference to others is one of the bases of art and literary construction and discussion, and i have shown you a number of articles showing that just such discussion take place in notable peer reviewed sources. That really does meet all the requirements--sourceable is sufficient. We do not discard articles that can be improved--or at least we generally haven't been until this series. I am, quite frankly, not particularly interested or  qualified in writing about the subject, and I do not argue that the article should be kept because I personally want to work on it. i don't. I want it kept so that others can, and since I very quickly found some rather obviously relevant sources, I include them both to  prove, that they exist, and as a starting point for others. You challenged me to find them, and I did. I've met every challenge you've made--even given the greater amount of work in meeting such a challenge than in making it. I've found sources very time you ask, and you go on asserting there aren't any or that everything that is found is not relevant. I think this indicates that you object to the topic even though the material meets all the rules. I haven't the least problem with that, you can have your own opinion about the importance of this, as long as you do not attempt to destroy what other people think important. (We've worded this as you & I but this is just a convenient way of speaking-- I am sure we both mean those who oppose the article on these grounds and those who support them, without any personalities really being involved in this). DGG (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said repeatedly, I do not have an objection to an actual sourced article about this topic. A mere list of examples of the topic is not an article about the topic. The notion that a list composed of a series of short paragraphs is not a list is bizarre. Otto4711 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as notable, per above, but needs at least 2 more cites IMHO. Bearian 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Yeah, global warming is notable, but this doesn't work as an article, just a trivial list that doesn't belong. Dannycali 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This can be cleaned up and properly sourced. Thin Arthur 05:34, 30 August 2007 (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.