Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakatoa in media and 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   delete. This was clearly contested, and I've taken several reads through it, but ultimately, even the "keep" arguments seem to agree that there is not sourcing that specifically addresses Krakatoa as a notable topic in popular culture, and arguments based upon sources or the lack thereof are generally definitive when deletion is being considered. If anyone's interested in merging, I would be happy to help make arrangements to comply with attribution for the merged material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Krakatoa in media and popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing but a list of unsourced trivia. Deprodded by a staunch defender of in popular culture articles with "not uncontroversial deletion; most such articles are nowadays kept at AfD ; the present material is neither OR nor SYN, but the collection of information abotu notable works". I fail to see how this is not WP:OR or WP:SYN, since it's a very loose connection at best. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete more or less per nom. This is dismal stuff, almost entirely unsourced speculation. I could probably go in there and suggest, because maybe I think it's true, that Hershey's Krackel bar is a Krakatoa reference because, you know, it has that "Krak" thing at the beginning, right guys? This is plainly WP:OR material, at least as I understand it. Maybe WP:NOTDIR as well. I like how the lede almost cedes this point, saying "many examples are based in the culture of expression and have no connection in any way with the explosion at all." I will say that much of this is rather amusing/interesting content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Bit too much OR for my tastes. Drjames1 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Krakatoa is notable, IPC content is verifiable, the current article is just kind of a mess. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I've added a number of RS barelinks, removed some of the sillier instances, and cleaned up the language a bit. There's plenty here than can be rewritten per WP:IPC, and since this is a WP:SS breakout from Krakatoa, the resultant cleanup would need to be upmerged, rather than deleted, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Krakatoa in public culture is a valid subject - in the misuse of the original subject - and it is the format rather than the subject that seems to offend - prodded by a staunch defender of public culture deletion - it requires some simple cleanup, and in worst case scenario - I concur with Jclemens that it (the valid remains) needs to be merged SatuSuro 22:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  —SatuSuro 22:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable - see here, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That link would support the notability of volcanoes in media and popular culture, not Krakatoa in media and popular culture. Krakatoa gets a brief mention on that page, not the type of significant coverage of its presence in media and popular culture that would justify this article. That's a significant distinction, as I don't think there's any question of notability around media and pop culture presenting volcanoes in general, which is what your link covers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Colonel. Article is full of trivia and needs work, but the topic itself seems viable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can see no listed reference covering this subject - "Krakatoa in Popular Culture". Rather, it's just a list of unrelated primary sources. Banal. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The topic itself is notable, considering the explosion itself is still talked about today. If necessary, and the article has been cleaned up, it could be merged at worst. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a la Colonel.   Th e S te ve   06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much per nom. This is just a collection of trivia on a myriad of unrelated subjects. The topic of how Krakatoa has been discussed in fiction isn't notable, so the only way to create an article is through an OR-list of unrelated facts and tidbits.  Them From  Space  19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - further to my comments above, people should remember that the topic of this article is not Krakatoa and the discussion is not on the (obvious) notability of that subject. Rather, the topic of this article and AFD is Krakatoa in media and popular culture. We are judging this specific topic and its notability. Again I point out that there is not a single reference here on that topic. It's just a list of trivia - best, there is a primary reference to a video game, or book, etc, etc. We are not discussing the notability of Krakatoa. --Merbabu (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree (obviously :) ). If someone can come up with a reliable source about Krakatoa in popular culture, and not volcanoes in popular culture (or similar), I'll very happily change my vote to Keep this rather amusing article. But I haven't seen a single reference in support of this topic's notability, and WP:GNG is pretty clear about, you know, needing references that address a subject "directly and in significant detail." Otherwise, this is all as the nominator says: original research and synthesis. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, if "Krakatoa" has 2+ non-trivial references in popular culture, then a "Krakatoa in popular culture" article meets the GNG. And, if the consensus here is that a separate article is not warranted, then per WP:ATD, the requirement is that sourced information be merged appropriately back into whatever article in which they best fit. The split/merge/split/merge cycle is what WP:IPC urges us to avoid. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * if "Krakatoa" has 2+ non-trivial references in popular culture, then a "Krakatoa in popular culture" article meets the GNG. That's not correct. Each Wikipedia article has a unique subject, which needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject of this article is Krakatoa in media and popular culture. It isn't Krakatoa. Information on Krakatoa, including relevant popular-culture mentions, belongs at the Krakatoa article. Split-out articles such as this aren't appropriate unless the child article's subject also meets the GNG.  Them From  Space  03:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware of the subject, thank you. I almost voted Merge but the Krakatoa article itself is long enough AND well known enough to have this breakout.  My vote stands.    Th e S te ve   06:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Krakatoa as an 'icon' used in unrelated manner for sometimes quite disparate motivations is a separate subject - and if you look at the history Merbabu and I worked on the article in December 2006 - (how time flies) - it was to try to separate out articles from the then very (and still) messy Krakatoa articles and related subjects - interestingly was created in the same year and hasnt been touched by the afd enthusiasts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa,_East_of_Java - is a blatant usage as I have previously mentioned above - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa:_The_Last_Days  is an excellent example as well - if anyone was the slightest bit literate or book oriented - the literature is vast and sprawling across a number of languages - Simkins', Winchester's and earlier writers bibliographies are quite justifiably filled with various earlier works trying to explain and dwell on the events of the big bang. However if the closing result is to delete the current article - the general intent of this article - deserves to be re-inserted in the mess that makes the krakatoa collection articles something that requires cleanup - over four years later SatuSuro 03:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Krakatoa. I just trimmed some trivial mentions (of the nature of "In work X, character Y says "this reminds me of Krakatoa!") and apparently non-notable examples, but some substantive cultural depictions remain.  Deletion simply is not an option per WP:ATD because even if further trimmed down (by normal editing) to a mere few works, this information at a minimum belongs in the parent article.  Whether there is enough for a standalone split-off article is a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve.  If there are enough notable works, then it also functions as an index of notable works by shared subject in addition to being a subtopic of Krakatoa.  The claims that this is WP:SYNTH are difficult to understand, because this does not combine material from different sources to make a conclusion or statement of fact that those sources do not support.  And for the claim that this is garden-variety WP:OR, it seems that this claim was made on the incorrect belief that mere reliance on a primary source constitutes OR.  Whether a work is about, or substantively depicts Krakatoa is verifiable, even if from the work itself.  Listing such works together does not inherently constitute SYNTH even if you are the first to do so, no more than it is to be the first to combine information from two particular biographies about a "George Washington" without having a third book telling you that the biographies are indeed about the same man.  postdlf (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: - so no-one can produce a single reference on Krakatoa in Popular Culture, let alone secondary sources. Significant coverage across reliable sources is the most basic of all criteria for notability. It's no good just to say "it's viable". Please explain how Krakatoa in Popular Culture can be supported with specific reference to WP:N. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this which seems to address the topic. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with Krakatoa in Media and Pop Culture. That's a google books link to a book which already has an article. At best, this article is just a list of different, and otherwise unrelated items. Their only link is that they happen to be about Krakatoa. Again, we are discussing a topic for which no references have been provided. --Merbabu (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor has anyone tried, since the GNG doesn't require it. The subject is "Krakatoa", which is unquestionably notable. This is a breakout article covering certain references to Krakatoa, as listed in the rest of the title. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have no requirement that individual article sections be independently notable, nor that such article sections can't be split off into separate articles or lists for size concerns.  Re: Merbabu's comment that "Their only link is that they happen to be about Krakatoa."  Well, yes, that's the whole point of this list article, and that one shared fact is sufficient.  We combine items in lists, categories, or navigational templates because they have a shared encyclopedic fact in common, and indexing works by a shared subject is a pretty obvious method.  The only thing that people who died in 2011 have in common is that they are notable people who died in 2011, or that people from Idaho have in common is that they are notable people from Idaho.  People need to stop reading guidelines and policies in isolation without consideration for how that would actually apply across the board to content.  If it's verifiable that there are multiple notable works about Krakatoa, itself a notable subject, then we don't also need a single reference also listing all of these works as being about Krakatoa.  Reminds me of a dear departed editor who thought that we could not create or expand lists by compiling sources, only by copying them verbatim from already published lists.  postdlf (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  We have no requirement that individual article sections be independently notable, nor that such article sections can't be split off into separate articles or lists for size concerns. Yes we do; its the GNG, which applies to all articles, even if they were created as spinouts. Creating a spinout article creates a new article with a new subject, which must satisfy the GNG (or another notability guideline). We cannot spin out subtopics that do not, themselves, satisfy our notability guidelines. Doing so would allow for thousands of nonnotable articles, since any nonnotable subject that is mentioned in a parent subject's article could be spunout.
 * And yes, I agree about Deaths in 2011 and List of people from Idaho. Those are also not appropriate for articles; categories work for them, but not articles.  Them From  Space  20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in practice and as demonstrated repeatedly in AFDs there is not any rule as strict as the one you would like, perhaps in part because the anarchy hors GNG you fear in which "any nonnotable subject that is [merely] mentioned...could be spunout" is actually a straw man&mdash;the spinouts I was talking about and that we are dealing with here are from article sections, not merely from anything mentioned within an article. If an article section is appropriate for that topic and there is sufficient verifiable encyclopedic information such that its size would make it unwieldy to remain within that article, then it is spun out (and if the spin out is then opposed, it is merged back, not simply deleted).  It also helps that it's fairly standard to list notable works that are about an article's topic, such that it requires no special pleading to also do so here (or within the Krakatoa article).  Particularly since, had anyone !voting "delete" bothered to look, there are even multiple reliable sources that list or discuss such works about Krakatoa together.,,  As for your last comment about preferring categories, it's contrary to WP:CLN in addition to being irrelevant here, though it's nice of you to express your view so clearly far outside of consensus regarding what lists you feel are not "appropriate", as that helps to contextualize the rest of your comments.  postdlf (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Merbabu's rationale. Deor (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (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.