Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton 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   keep. Strong consensus to keep this article. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Newton in popular culture

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

Contested prod. This is self confessed "fan cruft" according to the author. If this was by itself on the Isaac Newton article it would be removed per WP:Trivia. DFS454 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) '''I have now changed my opinion. I initially tried to withdraw this but am told it is not possible. See comment below'''--DFS454 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - This section should be in the Issac Newton article. As for WP:Trivia, this doesn't quite fall into this category.  Trivia "should be avoided" and "is better presented in an organized way."  That being said, a trivia page should definitely be deleted and the information moved to the Issac Newton article and placed in its respective sections.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand a rather insignificant article at this point, but there's a lot more to be said--the article is capable of development. There are probably a few dozen novels (worlcat hs 28) and there will be all te representations in games and other media. There are some very distinctive uses in Poetry and Art (he was a major theme for Blake, as a representative of the rationalistic part of the world he did not approve of). There's enoguh content here, if its done right, and not just this very basic start. Incomplete as it is, it did pick up the major contemporary work, the one by Stephenson. We do not delete articles if they have the potential for improvement. . "cruft" has only one meaning, which is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most people agreeing with you. The information there could be considered 'encyclopedic' but as of right now it's a trivia page according to WP:Trivia.  If you flesh out this article, it's a plethora of information about Isaac Newton which, by definition, should go under the article Isaac Newton.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back into the Issac Newton article where it fit quite nicely until it was split out prematurely a few hours ago. It's more likely to be expanded/maintained/improved in the main article where there are more eyes looking over it.  If/when it's built up enough to warrant it, it can be split back out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.  Right now it certainly doesn't merit a separate article -- no reason to prefer an unreferenced stub to an appropriate section in the larger article.  Baileypalblue (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop an apple on this one -- This can be a small section in the Isaac Newton article. It looks like the reaction to the spinoff is going to be greater than the action itself.  Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- There's potential here for improvement that other IPC articles don't always have. Incidentlly, aren't we jumping the gun JUST a little? The article was prodded just half an hour after creation, and then AFD'd not long after that. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I'd be sympathetic to a newly-created article, but Handling_trivia explains better than I could why an article like this one is unlikely to be improved with time. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge this back to Issac Newton where it belongs for now, per Bailypalblue. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's room for valuable expansion and material here. I formatted the thing a bit. The problem is that like all the other "in popular culture" sections or sub articles that are usually converted from trivia chunks, likely none of the information there will ever be sourced. But that's another problem. § FreeRangeFrog 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge - The main reason it was split is because it's so ... stub-like, and the quality of what is written and its prose makes such a contrast with the rest of the article. So no it does not fit naturally into Isaac Newton (a link is provided from there, howevever). This article is going through an FA review right now, and no article would ever get promoted to FA status if it were to include that section as it is now. Also unlike most cruft, there is actually something that could be said about Newton in popular culture (see DGG's comments above). Hence the split. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you thought the section was poorly written, you should have re-written it. If you thought it was worthwhile as a stand-alone article topic, despite your description of it as "cruft", you should have cleaned it up and found reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline before breaking it out.  If, as seems most likely, you simply wanted to get unsourced trivia information out of the Issac Newton article, you should have deleted it.  As it is, the material is unacceptable as a stand-alone article.  Please see Handling_trivia for further discussion of why this is the wrong way to deal with trivia, and why articles like this should not exist.  Baileypalblue (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, deleting trivia sections outright brings on the wrath of bots and editors who have a "thing" for trivia. I think anyone who has tried to clean up trivia is aware of this, hence the resort to spin-offs. WillOakland (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic, but the easy solution is not generally the right one, and in this case there wasn't even an attempt to deal with the problem the hard way -- not even a mention on the article talk page. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think Virial theorem is poorly written, then why don't you rewrite it? We're all good at some things and we suck at others. One of the things I suck at it taking poorly written things I don't know much about it turn them into better stuff. You probably don't know much about the Virial theorem, and I don't know much about Newton in popular culture. DGG above seems to know more than most, so maybe he could expand the article, maybe he's got better things to do. All I know is including this section introduces a break in both the quality and tone of Isaac Newton as well as topical pertinance. Also there is no reason why this article can't become something like D. B. Cooper in popular culture. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The regular editors of Isaac Newton are the best-equipped people to improve the material, which is exactly why it belongs in Isaac Newton. And with all due respect, AfD is not cleanup; it's not DGG's job, or my job, or the job of any other !voter here to do your featured article cleanup for you.  You took personal responsibility for the article content when you made the decision to split it out.    Baileypalblue (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur--DFS454 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete under WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in favor of a sourced prose discussion in the main article. WillOakland (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it original research? Are you saying that Newton isn't mentionned in popular culture? Or are you saying that Newton didn't have a significant role in "The Age of Unreason"? WP:INDISCRIMINATE could apply however.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing an article based on "things I saw" without any relevant sources is original research. WillOakland (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not, at best it's unreferenced work (and I say at best, because all one has to do to verify that Newton is has a role in The Age of Unreason is pick up "The Age of Unreason"). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you're inserting an unsourced opinion into an article. If it's really so blatant, and important to the work and the world at large, surely there are secondary sources. WillOakland (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps if we HAD TIME to do so rather than get PRODDED/AfD'd 0.4 nanoseconds after creation we'd have a chance to improve the article rather than debate about its current state.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I consider all "in popular culture" articles to be inherently unencyclopedic, i.e. they are unsuited to the formal treatment properly associated with a serious encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't paint the world in broad strokes. Should we delete the very decent D. B. Cooper in popular culture because it has the words "in popular culture" in it? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - there's a third of a million Ghits for this topic,, this is clearly notable, and has lots of possibilities for good sources. There are lots of good-to-start articles that are "popular culture" articles (a whole category in fact), and many of those started out as stubs. I've worked on a number of them myself.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so space is not a problem, and tertiary sources need not be stiff and serious.  The ongoing consensus of the community is that pop culture is acceptable for Wikipedia.  These things take time, let it be.  One may become very frustrated here if one sticks to a line of reasoning that all things of one type are "cruft". Bearian (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT see WP:GHITS --DFS454 (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment please look at the |16,000 Google Scholar hits and then read WP:GHITS over again. You can change you mind, now, thank you very much. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into the main article. One, it's not trivia. It shows how this scientist had an effect on things besides the scientific community which is entirely encyclopedic. Rewriting it into short prose section in the right voice would make it fit with the rest of the article. (To the authors, instead of complaining this was nominated for deletion, you should've referenced your work BEFORE posting it.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First as it stands now, this isn't "my work", I don't know who wrote this stuff and I don't really care. Second if we had some TIME (here defined as more than 32 minutes ) before someone tries to delete it, then perhaps we'd be spending our efforts towards improving it rather than devote our time to defend it against deletion. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some books and publications dealing specifically with Newton in popular culture:
 * Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology, Maureen McNeil, p.27–43
 * Science in Popular Culture, A.B. van Ripper
 * The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture, M. Feingold
 * Here a wiki mirror contains an old version of an article about Newton, which can be browsed and salvaged.
 * There are more I'm sure, but that's that's an example of what you can find in a limited time if you actually bother looking rather than assume Newton in popular culture is the equivalent of "Jello in popular culture".Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to bother looking, but it may well be that this article can be made into something more than a list of TV shows (like Doctor Who) that have had a visit with Sir Isaac Newton. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for me, I think such a list a perfectly appropriate part of an article like this. Can someone give an argument other than IDONTLIKEIT why it isn't? I consider "it's trivia" and "should not be part of an encyclopedia" = IDONTLIKEIT. Myself, I don't like quite a bit of the content here, but I don't try to run the encyclopedia to my liking. DGG (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Very notable subject. Worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge until / unless the material is too unwieldy to keep in main article. Among other reasons, nobody is likely to search for this so if you think readers may care about this topic, better to put it somewhere it will be located. Bongo  matic  22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable topic. Yes, those sources at the bottom of the page aren't enough to claim that Newton in popular culture is a notable topic.  Next to none of these "in popular culture" type articles pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they are nothing but a wide collection of trivial mentions merged into these articles to prevent their deletion from the main articles where the editors care about quality over quantity.  That being said, I'm also opposed to a merge back to the main article.  It's a featured article and has been worked on a lot and we shouldn't drop this load on it.  If this article can't be deleted, it might as well rest in peace here. Themfromspace (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is notable. AfD is not for cleanup. AfD hero (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Albert Einstein in popular culture might be a good role model. Also, since "Newton" figures in Wordsworth as well as in Dr. Who, maybe "Cultural depictions of Newton" (as in  Cultural depictions of Jesus) would be a richer topic. betsythedevine (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per DGG and AfD hero. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Isaac Newton. No good reason to split out in first place. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listing every instance of something when it appears anywhere in popular culture is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. These articles are magnets for OR and POV and are rarely sourced adequately to show notability of the individual items. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, trying to carefully find every instance is what's known as scholarship. Collecting is the first step, followed by interpretation. But such things are to a certain degree OR, and we don't really do them here. The article/sections on popular culture do not attempt to be exhaustive. What we do is include those references in works that we consider notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Limiting them to that is what makes this not indiscriminate, but very much encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of really important things only. (And some people think that public awareness of science to be one of the really important things, the first step to their understanding it, which will be even more important once civilization reaches that level.) DGG (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have implied a question to me of why I personally was not actively working on improving this article./ The answer is that I find it necessary to defend articles to the extent I haven't enough time to improve them. It takes time to build. It takes very little time to destroy. Trying to remove improvable content is the way to destroy the encyclopedia. I read the comment above, and some other comments,as indication that people think Wikipedia should cover as little of popular culture and fiction and such things as possible. Some are not actually attacking this article, they're attacking all such articles, one at a time, in the hope to accomplish by chance and attrition what has been rejected as policy.   DGG (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this were anywhere else on the internet, I'd reply to you with "LOLWUT". But since we're on Wikipedia and I try to be serious here, I'll simply thank you for your philosophical exploration into the origins of scholarship. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You better believe DGG knows a sight more about scholarship than you do.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOLWUT. (sorry, I couldn't resist!) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep = Articles, monographs, and books have been written about this, therefore this is verifiable. Also notable, as he's the most important scientist of the second millennium and as a character Newton has a strong place in the fiction of the last hundred years.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable topic. At present the contents of this article are weak, but they are susceptible of improvement. Only lack of time prevents this from becoming a much better article. I would say that Alexander Pope's poem '.."Let Newton be", and all was light!' is also part of popular culture, and more famous than any of the items that are here now. (Pope's work was left behind in the parent article when this one was split off). Then there is Wordsworth's poem with the 'prism, and silent face', also part of popular culture, not included here yet. If people really hate 'in popular culture' titles, there could be a free-standing article 'Influence of Newton' in which all of Newton's extra-scientific impacts could be included, including his effect on popular culture. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. If the article must be kept, Pope would make a good addition the collection. Themfromspace (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (no merge), for all the valid reasons above and because the dissenting opinions rally around WP:TRIVIA (a self-proclaimed style guide), WP:NOTABILITY (plenty of valid sources given), WP:INDESCRIMINATE (isn't on the list of "not"s), WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC ("Encyclopedic!"), and WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("Too bad."). If those are the best reasons anyone can come up with then this AfD shouldn't even have been started. –  7 4   03:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is an actual policy. Learn to copy-paste. So far nobody has provided a basis for what to include here and what not to include here except subjective opinions of significance (WP:OR again). WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, unambiguously. All the arguments against are nothing more than prejudicial views and misrepresentations of policy:
 * "Would be deleted per WP:TRIVIA" - WP:TRIVIA advocates no such thing.
 * "Delete, WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE" - WP:VAGUEWAVEs.
 * "Delete, I consider all IPC articles to be unencyclopedic" - congratulations, go away.
 * "Non-notable topic." - WP:JNN.
 * It's not a brilliant article in its current form -- it's a stub with tremendous potential for improvement and an abundance of available sources on the topic. I'll add one more source to the ones listed above: .  On Wikipedia, we keep stubs and improve them.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How ironic that you cite WP:VAGUEWAVE just as you are waving off a good half-dozen arguments without confronting them directly. Themfromspace (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A wave for a wave. There are no arguments to refute.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even the one from notability, which is what we mostly use to delete articles? Surely you can at least try to refute it, no? Themfromspace (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the part where there are 16,000 hits in Google Scholar, 100,000 hits in Google web, and at least 5 reliable sources posted earlier in this discussion. How much more refutation do you desire? Would you care to elaborate on what part of the "notability guidelines" you feel this article violates? –  7 4   06:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's all I asked is for you to refute the arguments for deletion. Just listing policies and saying "keep it" isn't a refutation at all and amounts to really saying nothing.  Saying why you believe this meets the notability guidelines is much better than saying that WP:JNN is not a reason to delete. Themfromspace (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am convinced by arguments put forward from DGG and Father goose. --DFS454 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of Newton himself is not at issue here. Stop pretending that it is. WillOakland (talk) 22:34, 24 February 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.