Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil


 * 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 Delete.  Citi Cat   ♫ 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection/list of quotes, unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - another directory of loosely associated...aw hell, do I really have to type this again? This random list of things in which a particular book can be seen tells us nothing about the book, nothing about Nietzsche, nothing about the fiction in which the book can be seen and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete More notability problems with pop culture articles. CaveatLectorTalk 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Do the people listing these articles want them improved if possible? If so, they should not be listed in large batches, for it is not possible to improve articles as fast as they can be listed for deletion. I am beginning to think it might be an attempt to overwhelm those who do believe that articles should be improved rather than deleted. But I do AGF, and therefore hope that most of the outstanding noms will be withdrawn, and then re-submitted at the reasonable rate of perhaps one or two a day. That is what would contribute to improving the encyclopedia, rather than assuming that upgrading the articles is impossible.  DGG (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was such a beautiful speech...my heart is full... Otto4711 23:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think having the goal of improving the encyclopedia is more than rhetoric--its the reason at least some of us are here. It's the reason I take an interest in keeping these articles, which are otherwise not within my field of interest in contributing. DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles don't form a meaningful basis for any kind of better article. Burn the trivia, and build something better if you want. --Eyrian 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they are a basis--they are the materials which when sourced will make the article. DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo Talk 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, "... seen reading this book in the 13 episode of the second season" WP:NOT of trivial appearances of a book (cover) in unrelated films, TV, etc. Crazysuit 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: per the reasons I gave when I created the page in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that it's a totally stupid, worthless and pointless page, and on literal application of the policy ought perhaps to be deleted. But it keeps this stupid, worthless and pointless material out of the actual article Beyond Good and Evil, and deters people from adding more - since there is a link through to this page, where they can add trivia to their hearts' content. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs: this is one I think we should prepared to break, in the name of the greater quality of the omelette. ElectricRay 08:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating a garbage article to keep another article pure is not a valid excuse. All you've done is dump off your problem on someone else. Otto4711 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? I'm dumping the problem in a dump that no-one needs to worry about. Who cares what gets posted in Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil? Think of it like a sandbox. Here's an idea - why not put the article out of the mainspace. I don't think anyone would even notice. It's only a problem if you make it a problem. You see a problem: I see a solution. ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a standing offer to police any articles at request. I now watch Beyond Good and Evil, and will keep it clean. --Eyrian 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's pretty admirable, but isn't it a waste of your time? wouldn't it be smarter - a better use of your time - to just let the grafiti artists have a free wall for grafiti? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the sophisticated title, this is essentially about occasions where a particular book was used as a prop. "What'cha readin'?"  "Beyond Good and Evil.  See?"  "What's it about?"  "Dunno." Mandsford 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * not essentially that, but exactly that. And that's the beauty of it. You can keep the pointless tittle tattle out of the mainspace article, without having to guard it like cerberos at the gates of hell, which seems to be Eyrian's idea. Life's too short, y'know? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Even the creator of this article calls this stupid, worthless and pointless. I agree. Saikokira 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not notable in popular culture and no WP:RSes have been found saying it is. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are all being a bit formalistic here. Think about the spirit of the rules, and not their literal application. this page does no harm (other than offending thine eyes). but it saves a lot of work - if it saves any work, for people who don't like trivia in proper articles, then it's been worthwhile. Why the kne-jerk reaction? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Every article must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, an exception in those policies and guidelines for "it saves me work." WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping. Otto4711 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ElectricRay, although I like seeing the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and I hate to see a salvageable article deleted, I cannot at all agree with your basic proposition... which, if I understand correctly, is that there should be a trivia dump, grafitti wall, lightning rod, vacuum cleaner bag, etc., to keep "garbage" out of a main article. It's a nice try, but you've got Otto and me in agreement... and he and I rarely agree on anything (though I've always considered him to be an excellent adversary).  While I am disappointed if I'm on the losing side of a deletion debate, I think that the deletion process makes for better writing in the long run.  I had an article deleted, one I thought was great stuff when I wrote it; after seeing similar crap since then, I came to realize wasn't that good.  Am I a better writer now?  No, but I have a better idea of what goes and what doesn't.  We don't do anyone any favors by encouraging them to turn any idea into a faux encylopedia article.  Sometimes, giving a student an "F" is the best lesson that they can get.  Mandsford 03:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making the assumption that there is one student who will learn a lesson from the award of an F. But there is a tendency on the part of a whole lot of people to write trivia, and no amount of handing out Fs is going to stop them (and actually, who knows, some people might find the trivia interesting or useful). Wikipedia is not paper, it's not like we need to save space (or lord knows, THIS discussion should be binned before the Trivia on Nietzsche section is), so why the hostility to a pragmatic, neat and harmless solution to an irritating problem? I really don't get it. On a positive note, I am pleased to have been the operating cause of harmony between yourself and Otto. Every cloud has a silver lining, hey? ElectricRay 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What can I say? You're ahead of your time.  The rest of us scoff at you... Scoff!  Scoff!  Maybe what we need is a service called Wikitrivia, with the slogan, "the trivia book that anyone can add to" (editing might hurt someone's feelings, so you could only add, not subtract).  Instead of the AfD process, we can have the AftR process... no deletions, but articles for the refrigerator, because some of these are so special that they need a refrigerator magnet and some love to go along with them.  It could be supported by advertising from sugary cereals.... geez, I hope I haven't stolen your idea.  Mandsford 23:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the accumulation of small contributions from multiple editors we build the encyclopedia. The history of any GA will show it. The above argument seems a little excessively worded, and that it is based on over-extended simile shows perhaps a certain frustration at the lack of good arguments. DGG (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Better here than there" is not a good argument. There are not two tiers of articles&mdash;"serious" and "in popular culture." This is an article for deletion, and therefore must be consistent with our policies for articles, including LIST, N, and OR. Since it's a hodgepodge of whatever nameless editors think might be a cultural reference to Nietsche, it fails. Without a secondary source about popular portrayals of gnosticism, there are no sources to establish N, and nothing to guide us away from OR. Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There has to be multiple, reliable sources that acknowledge each of the cultural references and not the film or video game itself, otherwise it's original research. Yes, it's true that these films or video games refer to the book, but there can never be multiple, reputable sources that recognise each of these mentions. Spellcast 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * there are reviews for most of the ones specified, and they will show it DGG (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, referring to FIVE is unacceptable. Is like referring to everything all it once, so completely and utterly as to be useless. Mathmo Talk 23:41, 7 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.