Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Of Mice and Men 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men in popular culture
AfDs for this article:


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

Mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft (tagged with refimprove since 2008, and already during AfD 13 years ago called "just a cluttered trivial dumping ground."). Not linked from anywhere except as a see also or part of Steinbeck's navigational template. Fails - take your pick - a myriad of policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and  WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR, WP:V. As someone interested in history of literature, I'll say that it is an interesting list of trivia (well, mosty, I can't find any redeaming value in stuff like "In Cookie Clicker, there is an achievement named "of mice and men" obtained by purchasing 100 cursors."), but sadly, it's not encyclopedic. To anyone who wants to argue this has some value, please read the above policies, and note that Scholar query shows dozens of academic article using the title of the novel as puns (ex. "The best laid plans of mice and men: the computer mouse in the history of computing", "Of Mice and Men: Animals in Human Culture", "The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men: Official Narratives and American Meaning-Making in World War II", "Of mice and men: hybridoma and recombinant antibodies"). Would you like to see a new section 'in scholarly works' listing all times someone decided to include the pun based on this novel in the title of their paper? :P That said, it's possible this is a notable topic (ex. ), but WP:TNT applies; as past and current experience has shown, any rewrite of this would have to start from scratch anyway. In the case someone would try to do so, we should start by writing a properly referenced section in the main article before splitting stuff up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture,  and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a list of every minor even vague reference. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every possible call back, mention or vague citing of a work that has occured, no matter how minor. Also note that saying "the best laid plans of mice and men" etc. in a scholarly article may not even be a reference to Steinbeck. It was Burns who wrote a poem that mentions "the best laid plans of mice and men" over 100 years before Steinbeck. So not even all uses of "of mice and men" are neccessarily in any way alluding to the book at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only included source that actually says anything about the overall use of references to the book in popular culture is the first listed one from the NYT, and that consists entirely of the one sentence that is quoted in this article. The remainder of the article is nothing but non-notable trivia items. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. WP:OR requires that a topic be covered in independent sources, or we should not have an article on it. For clarity, Of Mice and Men is clearly notable, and could use some improvement. I would recommend that someone try to find suitable sources about the legacy of the main work, as that may do a better job covering its long-term impact on culture. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, purely original research, textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:11, 8 May 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.