Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homelessness 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Homelessness in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Textbook example of how not to do "in popular culture". Listy, unsourced, no correlation besides that each tangentially touches on homelessness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A textbook example of an "in popular culture" article would have lines like "In The Simpsons, Homer says 'Why don't all these homeless people people just go home?'". The portrayal of the homeless and the plight of homelessness in film would probably make a good article-- "Stone Pillow" with Lucille Ball, that episode of "Kate and Allie", complaints over portrayal of a hobo in Warren Beatty's "Dick Tracy", etc.  This is a list with no context rather than an i.p.c.  Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a textbook example of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The long list of examples of occurrences in books, films, songs, and television was split out from homelessness in December 2008.  And the textbook example of the ensuing AFD discussion will be, as can be seen from the examples at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing of where this path has been trodden before, opinions to delete or to merge back into homelessness, for the cycle to repeat months or years from now.  &#9786; Of course, the solution that breaks the cycle, as also exemplified so many times before, is a proper article, written based upon sources that discuss the subject, rather than written in cargo cult fashion.  See, for example. If anyone feels like taking up the challenge of actually writing article content, you could do worse than starting with Homelessness in American literature (John Allen, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 9780415945899) as a source for a literature section.  Or you could use the "Images of homelessness in 19th and 20th century American literature" and "Images of homelessness in the media" entries in David Levinson's Encyclopedia of homelessness (SAGE, 2004, ISBN 9780761927518).  This is, after all, a &mdash; literally &mdash; encyclopaedic subject with in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources.   Show the cargo cultists how this is properly done.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, far too many of us can't be arsed to write a proper article. :-P Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For all British Wikipedians, I have to point out that when Americans (especially in the south) say that they were "ast" or "as'd" to do something, it is a simplified pronunciation of the word "asked". The word "ass" is not used as verb in American English, so "arsed" would not be the equivalent.  Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See "arsed". Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I learn something new every day.  Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as User:Uncle G states, this is simply a list of appearances of homeless people, and the topic is too broad. J I P  | Talk 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Maybe there are reliable sources on the presentation of homelessness in popular culture, too bad no editors bothered to look them up. If someone wants to start improving this article from sources, please remove the crap. WillOakland (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that homelessness composes a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is fine. You don't need a reference to each song and film listed, to prove it concerned the homeless.  The titles alone should be enough for some of them.  If you have any reasonable doubt of anything on the list, then tag with a citation needed tag, and someone can bother to find a reference for it.   D r e a m Focus  13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Dream Focus and CoM. A lede has now been added to introduce the list.   Granted the article could be vastly improved by anyone familiar with the sources suggested by Uncle G,  but this is too noteable a topic for us not to have an article,  and I think what we already have does a fairly good job. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, laundry list of random occurrences of homelessness. Indeed, all "in popular culture" articles are inherently unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial list cruft that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I wish those voting delete would look past the current state of articles to the importance of the topic, and I wish those saying someone should find sources and improve the article would do it themselves! You've got Google, right? It's so easy to sit back and vote delete, but it's a lot harder to rescue an article. I agree with Uncle G's cargo cult essay, but it's not an argument for deletion. The topic isn't trivial; the depiction of a massive social problem in film, TV, music and art is well worth writing an article about. This is nothing like Star Wars in popular culture or List of ways Kenny dies or other unencyclopedic popular culture cruft (how easy it was to guess titles of deleted listcruft!). It's not indiscriminate at all, the topic of the article is quite clear. I don't like list articles much either, but there is scope for a very useful discussion of how homelessness has been portrayed in popular culture. The obvious example for those in the UK is Cathy Come Home, the 60s Ken Loach film that had such an impact that the charity Shelter was founded in response, and it is still being discussed. There's a whole book on media portrayals of the homeless:Reading the homeless: the media's image of homeless culture, chapter 11 of this book looks useful, this book on film noir has a chapter on the homeless in noir, also see, a book on homelessness has a chapter called A changing image the homeless in popular culture, 1890-1930, this book is called Homelessness in American literature, there are articles about how Hollywood deals with the topic: and a book called Beyond the Stars has a chapter Down and out in Tinseltown. Here's some more news articles on the topic:. Academic studies:. The news reporting of homelessness can also be covered, e.g. "Working in the area of social exclusion, it's apparent that the media find it difficult to accurately report on issues such as homelessness. For example, the terms "homeless households" and "homeless families" (terms often generated at government level but proliferated by the media) mask the fact that the majority of homeless people are single men. Single homeless men don't engage the sympathies of your average reader, and as a result stories involving them, such as the level of violence perpetrated against them by members of the public, often go unreported".. Also . Fences and windows (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. "The problem is, far too many of us can't be arsed to write a proper article." Yes, quite. Also a note to fellow members of the Article Rescue Squadron: we rescue articles, we don't just vote keep. There are many more sources out there if we look for them, but those I've found should be a start on rewriting this. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article topic is certainly notable, and Uncle G points out that there are sources demonstrating notability. If the article were deleted, I expect many of the examples would return to the article when it is in better shape. I fail to see why this article should be deleted now, since existing content consists of notable or significant examples. Be patient and wait for higher quality content to appear. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Not a valid use of our space. Hipocrite (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move This info was good in the article it originated in. Before it got so unweildly (sp?) huge!  Perhaps it can be pruned and put back in it's original spot - Homelessness - Dogtownclown (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with the sources Fences found. That there are books and chapters of books on this specific subject is certainly enough for notability, by any standard, especially the basic one in WP:N. The deletes are either IDONTLIKEIT or "needs improvement", neither of which are reasons for deletion. Come to think of it, perhaps it would be a good idea for us to start interpreting and delete giving only the reason that it needs improvement as a !keep.  DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (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.