Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced list of popular culture (loosely defined - is Tolstoy really popular culture?) references to illuminati. Tagged as unreferenced since March 2007, WP:OR since September 2007 and triviacruft since January 2009. No apparent effort has been made to fix any of these issues. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It still needs cleaning up, and 'in popular culture' isn't the best title for these articles, but the last AFD closed with weather verging on snow, and I see no reason to delete it now. The article doesn't appear to be tagged as being listed at AFD if someone could sort that out. Sorted.--Michig (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like more of an editing issue, which AfD is not meant to be used to force. Some of the items might be better included at Illuminati (disambiguation).  I'll try to do some cleanup (removing some to disambig), but I don't know that I'll have the time to do referencing.  I agree something new needs to be worked out about IPC sections/articles.  My own thought is that a talk page subpage should be created (e.g. [Talk:Illuminati/IPC] - don't redlink that) where people can add them willy nilly, and they can be transferred to the parent article or create an IPC article as they get referenced. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline, but I think that over two years is long enough for the editorial process to fix fundamental deficiencies in an article. This has not happened. It's not happened despite a previous AfD at which the need for sources was also discussed. Basically, the people who edit this page have no apparent interest in making it compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So there's a two year deadline, basically. ;-} I could do something with this but not on the time schedule of this AfD; I have other stuff I'm working on at the moment.  Worst case scenario, I'd ask it be userfied to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Listcruft, mostly fan-type material. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a few references - much of the content can be referenced fairly easily by the look of it, and those entries that can't can be removed.--Michig (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * not what?--Michig (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a collection of un-notable mentions of the Illuminati, hopefully. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep None of those are reasons for deletion and AFD is not cleanup. Kmusser (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per this nom, you know? JBsupreme (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I've relisted this debate to generate more substantive discussion, as many of the arguments here are fairly weak. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "...in popular culture" articles are normal on WP, and useful to interested readers. And yes Leo Tolstoy's books are popular culture, although I don't remember this incident from War and Peace. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOT. I might reconsider if a reference surfaces that discusses the topic itself. Pantherskin (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft, among other things. Also, I tend to agree with the idea that while there may not be a hard deadline, there's an indefinite point when an article has been around and tagged for a problem and said problem hasn't been fixed that you can say "It's had enough time, let it go".  And in this case, we're coming on three years...yeah, it's time to let the article go.Tyrenon (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, more or less per nom. Most of this list is unsourced, there is original research throughout, and do we REALLY need to know every time a secret society is mentioned in some obscure kids cartoon?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. WP has many lists of every time something is mentioned in obscure media, and I and many other users find them worthwhile reading.  The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted.  If the many unreferenced bits were removed, perhaps it could be merged into Illuminati. Ivanvector (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I know there are sources for Illuminati in literature, mainly Illuminatus!, Burkett's Illuminati, gothic lit especially Frankenstein, Northanger Abbey, Horrid Mysteries, and Nightmare Abbey, but others too. See e.g. The Cambridge companion to gothic fiction for a brief overview of some points regarding readers' "scandalous vogue for german tales of the illuminati."  Some for movies and games.  Less certain about music (I'm really curious about why rappers seem obsessed with it, but I don't know that anybody's written about that).  Thus I think an article, rather than a list of mentions, is possible, but it would take some time to develop (which I would like to do but am more inclined to start with expanding Illuminati, which is uninformative).  I'd prefer there not be a merger to keep the edit history and talk page intact.  It continues to amuse me that there's not a deadline, but many editors have one.  I wish it were possible to do [Wikipedia:Arguments for deletion/Delete as listcruft] and never see it again!  Yes, there are fannish lists and articles deserving of deletion, but that's not the argument to make for their deletion.  The enthusiasm for citing essays (especially self-acknowledgedly uncivil ones) over guidelines and policies is rather fannish and crufty, ironically. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I spoke too soon: Christopher Holmes Smith and John Fiske, "Naming the Illuminati" in Ronald Radano and Philip Bohlman, eds. Music and the Racial Imagination (Chicago: University of Chircago press, 2000), chap. 18. and Bakari Kitwana, "Future Shock: Is the Hip-Hop Generation Ready for the New World Order?" The Source (August 1996). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's very sloppy, but I took out all the unreferenced stuff (some of which might merit being readded, but see article talk page), wrote a more explanatory lede which still needs expansion, took out the bullet points to get away from the listing trend that creates, added some new material with some quick references which need their citation style fixed (I can do that, just doing it on the fly right now) and which can be mined for additional material since I barely scratched anything. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work - I believe your improvement deals with all of the issues raised in the nomination.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep i havent compared the recent changes, but i do believe that this subject is inherently encyclopedic, so it just needs appropriate editing. i of course wish we had a better name for such articles, as "in popular culture" is the bane of WP. oh well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Although it was, indeed, unreferenced at the time that it was nominated, that problem has been fixed. Luckily, in practice, AfD really is cleanup, and a damn good thing too.   Kudos to Schizombie for all the work done in   improvement, and to the Guy guy for nominating it.  Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that some people, like Lankiveil 's viewpoint, may have objections about it's importance. Well, for many people, this may make important information. This article reads like a list and is essentially a list. I'd propose to convert this article back into a list and keep it.  Hamza  [ talk ]  15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine the way it is, but this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My feeling is that phrases like "in popular culture" and "list of" are the Wikipedia "kick me" sign.  Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep this well organized and notable article as an early discussion already closed as keep and per the default whenever a WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument is used. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A fine popular culture article. It list many notable works which have featured the subject, and gives encyclopedic information about it.   D r e a m Focus  22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a few problems but the subject definitely warrants an article.Markeilz (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now has lots of references and so the reason for nomination is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see a referenced article written with fairly decent prose. The arguments "listcruft" and "unreferenced/original research" seem to have been addressed. The content is too detailed to be germane to the Illuminati article; it is doing just fine where it is. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 18:03, 26 January 2010 (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.