Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After a full rewrite by (thanks!) to make this an actual article rather than a list of fancruft.  Sandstein  15:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Genies in popular culture
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has been example-cruft and an indiscriminate list ever since it was split off the main article in 2008. Fails WP:LISTN, these are the sorts of popular culture articles that are a detriment rather than benefit. (It was AfD'd previously by TTN, and some voted "Keep" as "the topic is notable", but has seen no improvement to convert it into a decent article). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as nom fails to articulate why the article fails LISTN. Sufficient sources were brought up in last AfD to demonstrate notability. The fact that it hasn't been cleaned up is something that can and should be addressed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason any potentially notable info cannot be in the existing Jinn instead of here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It has no possible way of fitting there. I exported the most recent version of the article over to https://cultural-phenomenons.fandom.com/wiki/Genies_in_popular_culture to preserve it.  Couldn't do a full history important because the file size was too large.   D r e a m Focus  06:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably notable topic, but this list is pure WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTRIVIA in needs of WP:TNT. Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC) PS. Changing to keep due to a total rewrite by TD. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete  - While the actual title of this article is notable, the actual contents of the article is not. I would not be opposed to having this being sent to Draft if someone felt that would actually be helpful to have while doing a complete rewrite (which is unquestioningly what would need to be done), but the completely inappropriate material (i.e. the unsourced, non-notable, and/or WP:OR material) that is almost the entirety of the current content should not remain in the main space during this process, just because it happens to be under a notable topic title. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent article rewrite that addressed the previous issues, and removed the problematic material. Rorshacma (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, my opinion is the same than in the last nomination: The nomination in my view is not correct in that this fails WP:LISTN, because the topic is discussed in secondary sources like "From Jinn to Genies" and the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters ' several-page entry about "Djinn and Genie". That means it can be improved through normal editing rather than deletion, which is the suggested way to go according to WP:AtD. "but has seen no improvement to convert it into a decent article" is an argument specifically to avoid in deletion discussions according to WP:IMPATIENT: Wikipedia is a volunteer project, there is no time limit, and noone in particular is required to do an improvement at a specific time. As usual, I am wondering why those most bothered with the current state are not the first to work on its improvement. If anyone were to pay me for it, I would be happy to change my priorities and spend my Wikipedia time on improving this rather than other articles. Lastly, while there is a lot to improve here, there are also a number of entries supported by secondary sources already, so I don't think WP:TNT applies here. Daranios (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The argumentation is obsolete due complete overhaul of the article, so I am still !voting keep but now as a case of WP:HEY. Also pinging, as the article now been rewritten into prose as requested. Daranios (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per Rorschacma. As is, this fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, as there are no reliable third party sources. The entirety of it is a list of examples which is out of step with WP:MOS. Even if you were to rewrite this article, there is virtually nothing to WP:PRESERVE, as it is entirely original research. I believe on some level there is a notable topic here for Genies in fiction. But what little good content is actually in the Jinn article, and not here. If you were to start a notable article, you would start by spinning out parts of that. Nothing here meets our content policies, and we absolutely would delete this and start over, as seen with Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:GNG and therefore WP:LISTN specifically refer to the topic, not the current state of the article. Such sources about the topic exist, even if you are not satisfied with those which are present in the article. Daranios (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That largely applies to things where a page about them should probably exist, even if it's not up to snuff. As far as this topic goes, it really only needs to exist if the article about it isn't poorly written. In fact, per WP:REDLINK, the continued existence of the article will actually discourage people from making a new and well-written article because they assume it's complete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "As far as this topic goes, it really only needs to exist if the article about it isn't poorly written." This seems directly opposed to "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." from WP:N and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Always assuming it can be improved. And I think it can be, just look at this change which addresses a very small part of the flagged problems. If the improvement in the end is done by such incremental improvements or a rewrite into prose is up to those editors who volunteer to work on it. WP:REDLINK encourages the creation of links to notable topics which don't have their own article yet. I have seen nothing there which advocates for the deletion of imperfect existing articles. If there is, could you please point it out to me? As for motivation, a red link makes us aware that an article is missing. Here we already have something, and the tags at the top tell us that it's imperfect. They are the tool to motivate us for improvement. In my view, deletion in itself brings us not one iota closer to a good article, it only looses us the what we already have, some of which is encyclopedic. Daranios (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no argument to the fact that Japanese mythology is notable. That is "the subject" you are referring to. "Japanese mythology in popular culture" is an unnecessary split from that subject. Argue for a merge into the main article if you believe there is encyclopedic information here; I have no qualms about that either. The main issue is that this massive list doesn't need to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now this has gotten mixed up with Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination), but the arguments are very similar anyway: No, "the subject" I am referring to is not genies, it is what we actually have here, genies in popular culture. And I have seen no explanation so far why this topic, genies in popular culture, should fails WP:LISTN in spite of the fact that secondary sources have been found. If you are instead arguing that this list should not be kept separately because it fits into Jinn, why are we leading a deletion discussion rather than a merge discussion? If that were the case, the condition would be "If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time". The amount of already sourced material here is beyond "one or two sentences", and the suggested secondary sources could be used to expand it significantly if someone wanted to. Daranios (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. That said, it is deletion and not a merge discussion as there is nothing to merge. The entire article is a list without context that would have to be wholly rewritten from scratch. It's clear that any attempt to convince you is spinning wheels and getting nowhere, though, so I will give up this particular argument and stand by my original assertion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The explanation that there should be nothing to merge has nothing to do with the original claim, that this fails WP:LISTN. And why should already sourced statements, like Kelly's commentary on  The Thief of Bagdad not'' be WP:PRESERVEd? Daranios (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have expanded and sourced the lead a bit, so that the list is not without context, even if it isn't very long. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A good reason to not WP:PRESERVE the sentence According to English studies scholar Kathleen Coyne Kelly, the genie in the film represents colonized peoples, specifically of the British Empire, who here are subservient but upon whom the success of their ruler depends. is that that's not actually what the source says. What Kelly actually says is Justin, one might say, stands for the British Empire: stoic in the face of adversity, expecting others to behave as honorably as he does. Justin/Prince Ahmed has no strength of his own, but depends upon the muscle of colonized peoples to help him win back the Princess and destroy Jaffar. The thief Abu is played by Sabu, a young South Asian (who would go on to play Mowgli in Korda's 1942 The Jungle Book), and the Genie is played by African American actor Rex Ingram (ubiquitous as a generic African in early Tarzan films) in sparkling green face paint. TompaDompa (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And goes on to say: Ahmed can only regain his throne and win his beloved Princess by relying on the help of Abu and the Genie. We are supposed to give the content in our own words. So the sources says Justin/Ahmed stands for the British Empire, Abu and the Genie stand for the "colonized peoples". So why is that not an adequate summary? If there is a better one, anyone is welcome to improve it. Daranios (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an adequate summary because it's not a summary but an interpretation. The source doesn't say that the Genie represents anything. It's not making a point about the Genie at all, it's making a point about Justin/Prince Ahmed. Even saying that Kelly says that Justin/Prince Ahmed represents the British Empire is making a stronger assertion than is supported by the source, since the source is not unequivocal about it. "A might be said to stand for B inasmuch as the relationship between A and X is similar to that of B and Y" is not the same thing as "X represents Y". A better summary of that text might be According to English studies scholar Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Ahmed can be viewed as representing the British Empire in the way his relationship with Abu and the Genie mirrors that of the British Empire with its colonial subjects., but then it's pretty clear that the Genie is not what this is about (and we would still not quite be representing the source accurately since the explicit parallel the source makes is about character traits—being stoic and honorable—rather than relationships). If you think Kelly's commentary should be on Wikipedia, the proper place would presumably be the article The Thief of Bagdad (1940 film), where it can be summarized accurately from scratch without having to turn a point about one character into a point about a different one in order to fit the scope of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, and especially thanks for starting the article from scratch the way you did. While I still think the previous version had its own worth, I think what you have created is superior (and the old version is still available in the article history in case someone wants to use that in the future). Daranios (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarification, there is nothing in the article to preserve as it is a list of original research with no independent reliable sources. AFD is about deleting articles, not topics, and if someone wanted to create a proper article about this topic with proper sources, I would recommend Genies in fiction. I would also prefer if people don't push this AFD into a battleground by restating their position over and over. You have made your opinion clear and let's allow other editors to chime in. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "with no independent reliable sources" - But there are some secondary sources! - if only for a minority of material. There are also the primary sources given implicitely or explicitely, so I don't see the original research. Though I am happy to concede that we should have secondary source to distinguish notable from non-notable entries. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep conditional on retaining the prose structure I have introduced (see this version). Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. I have therefore replaced the list with a proper prose article based on sources about the topic, much as with WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Ping, who said Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - following the fine work by TompaDompa. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic for an article. Now rewritten to be one.   D r e a m Focus  14:33, 28 March 2022 (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.