Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Norton 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 TO DELETE. The numbers are about 7-4 in of Delete, not counting "Delete only if selectively merged back, otherwise keep" either way. This is tough because there is not so much a reaching for consensus over whether or not a particular article meets a particular standard, e.g. notability; it's more a division between those who generally favor the existence of "X in popular culture" vs. those who don't. I'm not qualified to judge this larger issue, but I don't see either "side" with a decisive "win". The argument that this article can serve as a kind of cruft disposal to keep the main article clean is reasonable. It is not as strong as the Delete arguments, but it is sufficiently strong to prevent a straight-out Delete close, in my view. A larger discussion and decision on when "X in popular culture" articles would be useful here. Herostratus 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Norton in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Of the great number of "in popular culture" articles now raising concerns, this one strikes me as the most absurd. Whatever useful information this covers is already in the history of the Emperor Norton article. The rest is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and random. Delete. Xoloz 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Best place to comment on his overal influence to the popular imagination. What is absurd or not-useful about that? User:Dimadick
 * WP:READTHENOM. Actually, that's not a real policy, but he said that all that was useful in the article has already been covered in the proarticle.--WaltCip 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete in popular culture. The way to fix bloated crufty "in popular culture" sections is to prune them, not split them out into new non-articles consisting of nothing but crap. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, wouldn't it? But I'm not entirely convinced that articles like "Isaac Newton in popular culture", where the subject is a trancendent figure not normally associated with popular culture, need to die. Xoloz 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to merge the "good" material back in, and to police the article so that it doesn't end up looking like the current "... Norton in Popular Culture" article? Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. The current arrangement is good for both the main article and the culture article.--Paul 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Important occurrences, where Emperor plays significant role in plot or topic go into main article, minor random references do not belong to wikipedia: not indiscriminate collection of info. `'mikka 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Totally agree with Guy, the way to deal with too much crap in an article is to get rid of it, not hide it somewhere else.  There is a difference between an article getting too long due to useful content, and when overzealous editors tack on every vague reference to a subject in pop culture they can imagine.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Requires clean up, not deletion. - Denny  ( talk ) 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete only if selectively merged back, otherwise keep. Emperor Norton's only real claim to fame is that of being a nineteenth century eccentric whose stunts amused twentieth century imaginations.  His article in chief is therefore a popular culture article, considered broadly; and his importance comes entirely from his exploits being recalled in contemporary novels and parody religions.  Even if it meant anything to call this data "cruft", it's still the heart of the article; for Emperor Norton would be a forgotten madman, not an encyclopedia subject, were it not for his celebration in "popular culture".  This stuff is what makes the dude famous today.  It never should have been removed from his article in chief, because this material, not his nineteenth century life, is what really makes him notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "... in Popular Culture" articles provide a valuable service in providing a place where editors can add trivia without negatively impacting the quality of the main article. NONE of the material in this Popular Culture article (which is just several lists) belongs in the Joshua A. Norton article, as it has nothing whatever to do with him. If this material were in the main article, there would be 1) the continual requirement that serious editors weed out the "cruft," and 2) edit wars about what kind of material is appropriate for a biography article in an encyclopedia.  The existence of this "Popular Culture" article makes both parties happy: those who want a serious article about Norton, and those who want to add odd trivia about popular culture. The comment above about Norton's only claim to fame is that his story amuses 20th century imaginations, is mistaken.  Norton amused his contemporaries.  The reason that it is possible to have an article about him today, is that his contemporaries wrote about him yesterday.  The first important article about Norton in the 20th century had nothing to do with popular culture, it was an article (with footnotes) in a historical society journal.  The idea that historical persons only exist through the lens of contemporary culture is cultural solipsism.  For these reasons, this article should not be deleted. --Paul 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all unsourced claims - which is to say the entire freaking article. I can't believe anyone thinks it's appropriate to have an article which has literally zero sources to back it up.  --Haemo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete after selectively mergingHis only reason for being encyclopedicis his life as an eccentric figure in popular culture. Fortunately, there are several references to his notereity. Anything encyclopedic with a reference satisfying WP:ATT should go into the main article; anything else in the present article which is original research or based on someone's personal recollection, which cannot be backed up with a reliable source, could be deleted. There are many claims in this article which are speculative and do not belong in Wikipedia, such as "it is believed that xxx is based on Norton." The numerous TV Western episodes, such as Bonanza, in which his character appeared could be included in the main article as a "popular culture" section. Edison 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep! something that has been a cultural phenomenon for nearly 150 years is worthy of an "in popular culture" article, if anything is. "Cruft," to me, means articles about much shorter-lived phenomenon. In this case, the lack of sources certainly isn't hurting anyone, and this sort of long-tail trivia makes Wikipedia great. Paul, above, is right that there's too much to go in the main article. -- phoebe/ (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is Emperor Norton?--WaltCip 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Joshua A. Norton. He was an eccentric who proclaimed himself the "Emperor of these United States" and "Protector of Mexico" in 1859. He's a legend now.  Nish kid 64  00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While Joshua A. Norton may be notable, he already has an article. The discussion here is about the "...in popular culture" article, which I don't see as adding anything that isn't already in the person's article. - BierHerr 17:27, 19 April 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.