Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Godfather films 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 delete.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Godfather films in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons. Now it's been split off into a completely different page. The article contains non-notable information references that other media has made to the films. So basically any time anyone says "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." or "Take the cannoli." it's detailed in this article. This information is trivial and unencyclopedic. Because it is essentially a trivia section in disguise, it violates WP:AVTRIV. I understand that it provides examples of the impact The Godfather has had on pop culture, which is why a few references should be given as an example within the main article (such as the frequent references within The Sopranos), however only as examples not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather". The Filmaker 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Trivia sections disguised as articles, do not good articles make.  Yet another "in popular culture" article that does nothing to try and elaborate on the importance of the topic in pop culture, let alone attempt to attribute sources.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom and as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every mention of the films, every time a line that was in one of the films, every time a line that sounds kind of like a line from one of the films or any time another film or TV show has a scene or a character that reminds an editor in some undefined way of something from one of the films. WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:ATT and probably a bunch of other policy and guideline violations. Otto4711 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff list. The nom was correct to condense and remove the trivia altogether as per WP:AVTRIV. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - some pop culture articles are trivial, but the impact of this particular film series is so significant that it is justified in this case. Some trimming would be helpful, though. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could explain how this information is not "interesting, but not important" then perhaps it would justify your Keep vote. The Filmaker 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can help you there, I think. While there's no denying that some entries really are in the nature of "some character on some TV series said 'sleep with the fishes'", many more of them are illustrations of the proposition that "The Godfather" has so entered the public consciousness (at least in the West) that now several generations of popular culture consumers are expected to know and understand references to the film -- that's pretty significant, in terms of cultural history, and difficult to characterize or document without such material at hand as data.  What makes it all appear "trivial" to some is that it's in list form, and hasn't been tied together with a prose summary that explains what it all means. We've got the trees, we just need someone to describe the forest. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Given that The Beatles' Miscellanea got deleted, this has got to go. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize -- I didn't see it, but it sounds like it might have been an interesting page -- but if you are saying that the policy shouldn't have been applied in that case, then isn't the application of it here also in error? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:AVTRIV is a good one, I haven't seen that used in a popular culture AFD before. I think it should be expanded to make these type of lists a specific policy violation. Croxley 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I created the page in question, but I'm not sure I have a particularly good argument to make for keeping it in terms of violation of Wikipedia policy . (Please see below for arguments which clearly show that the nomination itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that the policy cited to justify the nomination is not in order.) The argument I have made for this material in the past (when it was part of the "Godfather" article from where I spun it off) is that the contents are valuable as data points in showing the length and breadth and quality of the impact of "The Godfather" on popular culture.  My druthers would be for someone to take this material, take it out of list form, and spin it into a piece of prose which describes that impact, using some, but most certainly not all, of the listings as raw material.  That's not something I have time to do at the moment, nor am I necessarily capable of doing it in any case.  Should the page be deleted, I suppose that when I have some time I can make an attempt at it, but it would be a shame to lose the material in the meantime (I understand that it's always available by using the page history, but I mean lose access to it for the everyday user of Wikipedia).  Unlike The Filmmaker, who, in our discussions about this material on "The Godfather," before he withdrew from editing the article, expressed the opinion that the material was completely lacking in value, to the extent that he wasn't interested in keeping any of it, I think the material has value, but that's a subjective judgement, I guess.  I'm not totally certain what the intent of the stated policy is, but if it's to eliminate worthless information, it would be a shame to see it used to eliminate material of value.  In any event, this is the first time I've participated in a discussion like this, so I'm not sure how I should label my vote.  I would prefer to keep the article, but certainly understand that policy must be maintained, and if it's in violation, and the majority doesn't see any inherent value in the information, then deleting it would seem to be the thing to do.  I would still find it a shame, though, as the subject is one well worth including, even if the execution is slipshod. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:AVTRIV doesn't apply here as it's not a trivia list in an article, it's a separate list. I don't believe it's even entirely a list of trivia either (or even in the majority a list of trivia). Statements such as "not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather" and "seeking to capture every mention of the films" are just inaccurate. It's obvious by reading the page that that's not what it is. The film HAS had a big impact on popular (western) culture and with some tidying up and more structure this article will be a good companion to the main articles on the Godfather saga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.217.17 (talk • contribs)
 * The impact of the film on pop culture should be discussed within The Godfather article that's a given. However, this article presents nothing more than a collage of small bits of non-notable references. WP:AVTRIV does apply because, although the article is not explicitly labeled as a trivia, it is a list of trivial information in relation to the subject. A trivia section in disguise. The Filmaker 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's a judgment call, relying on one's definition of what is and isn't "trivial" -- an adjective expressing a definite point of view, and a value judgment. For instance, a previous editor of the Godfather article, who did a complete overhaul, eliminated all the so-called trivia, but chose to leave in one item about The Sopranos which was no more or less interesting, and no more or less informative, that any of the other listings that had been deleted.  It didn't illuminate anything in particular about the cinematic influence of The Godfather, and yet that editor thought it was valuable enough to preserve.  I am of the opinion that a sufficient amount of the current Godfather in popular culture page is of enough interest and has enough informative value to be kept, and should, ideally, be reconceived and revamped rather than chucked out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to say one other thing, as a fairly new participant in the Wikipedia project -- if Wikipedia is going to continue to attract people to contribute to it, it has to provide certain affordances which allow new editors to get their feet wet and start getting the feel for how the whole thing works. In my case, I started out with simple copy-editing, correcting spelling, punctuation and grammar, until I felt confident enough to try something more challenging.  For many people, adding an item to a "trivia" page is going to be the first thing they do as a Wikipedia contributor, and a policy of blanket elimination of these pages seems to me to be somewhat shortsighted and limited by a traditional definition of what an "encyclopedia" is.  Rather than eliminating them altogether, it would seem that isolating them in separate articles would be a better idea.  It keeps the main articles from growing like topsy, and yet still provides an easy entry for new Wikipedians to grow from.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should leave out whole articles that violate a number of Wikipedia policies for the benefit of new users. Look, I'm not against new users, I believe that we are in need of new concepts on how to keep our new users informed and allow them to grow. However, that cannot be one of them. We need to allow our new users to grow, but not at the expense of the project. At least not that much expense. I think what the matter of the issue is whether this information is trivial or not. As you just correctly stated, it's subjective and a judgment call. I believe that is why we have Afds. So that a number of users can come together and make their judgment calls as to whether this information is subjective. The Filmaker 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! The reductio ad absurdum! &mdash; but in this case a rather weak application, I'd say. I believe if you look a little more closely, you'll note that my comment is addressed to the question of whether the policy is a wise one, given the circumstances that I posited -- my understanding was that Wikipedia was community-driven, so is it not allowed to express such a thought?.  Certainly I'm concerned that perhaps the current proposal might not be in line with the intent of the policy -- I don't know, I haven't researched it, being somewhat more interested in editing and helping to make articles better than I am in administrative stuff (if I wanted to do that I'd've gone into politics or business) or in accumulating awards to post on my user page.  And yes, certainly, discussions like this seek to arrive at a group consensus through the individual expressions of opinons, but it is also allowed, I assume, that people's opinions can be swayed, or at least in some manner influenced, but the use of various arguments -- and that, I think, is what I'm doing, trying my best to influence votes through discussion of ideas relevant to the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My apology - I see that this is not a vote, per se, but a discussion in the nature of a recommendation. I'm sorry for having been mistaken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, a much shorter and efficient version would have been "I am allowed to state my case for the article that I created and believe in." which of course you are. I'm sorry if I implied any thing different. The Filmaker 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you do agree that short compact paragraphs are preferable to longer ones! Great! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice etiquette. What with bringing a completely different discussion into the mix. Great! The Filmaker 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, speaking of related subjects, I do think some consideration should be given to the motivation behind The Filmmaker's nomination for deletion, considering that the Filmmaker and I have been disputing the style and structure of the article for many months now. It appears to me that this nomination (which I recognize is totally consistent with the arguments The Filmmaker made in those discussions) and the nomination of the main "Godfather" article for Cinema Collaboration of the Week are, despite The Filmmaker's stated disinterest in working collabortively on the article, a continuation of that debate by other means, that having been unable to prevail via the discussion page, The Filmmaker has made moves which can, I think, be legitimately interpretated as both efforts to get back into the process by the backdoor (or at least dilute by influence on the article) and as a sort of harassement by official means.  I know that doesn't speak to the legitimacy of the nomination here, but it really should be considered, I think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You will notice that I have barely discussed anything with you up to this point. I pulled out of the discussion in the talk page because I simply have a lot of things going on at the moment and I don't have time to sit down ponder how I can articulate my thoughts to you on why you are wrong and I am right. However, I do have time to edit articles. That includes doing simple editing like nominating an article for Afd and Cinema Collaboration of the Week. I also realized that using these methods, are legitimate ways proving my theories to you. I've said before that this information should be deleted, entirely. You disagreed and fought me on it. Now I've brought you 7 editors who agree with me. I also nominated it for Cinema Collaboration because it will bring other users together. While they may not agree specifically with my beliefs. I believe, they will most likely disagree with yours. Finally, for the record, as of right now I do not plan on participating in the Cinema Collaboration if it selected. I merely support it. The Filmaker 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AS I've said, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and certainly entirely new to this process -- can someone give me an idea if 7 supporting opinions is significant, unusually large, insignificant or whatever? I'm a little confused about how and when "consensus" is reached, and who decides.  Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It always useful to examine motivation. It is interesting that
 * you had an argument about The Godfather article with Filmaker
 * that argument started when you objected to him deleting a section from The Godfather article that eventually became this article
 * you offered to collaborate on the Godfather article rather than conflict with Filmaker and he declined the collaboration
 * he instead decided on 23rd March (about The Godfather article) that "I am going to remove the article from my watchlist and forget about it for now" and "At this point, I'd prefer to simply finish Return of the Jedi" and that "I may come back to this article one day. However, it won't be one day soon".
 * Filmaker then put this article up for deletion 3 days later.
 * In my opinion, essentially you're being bullied. I think this from Filmaker says it all - > "I also realized that using these methods, are legitimate ways proving my theories to you. I've said before that this information should be deleted, entirely. You disagreed and fought me on it. Now I've brought you 7 editors who agree with me". Basically I read that as -> he doesn't agree with you, there is no compromise, he will delete your articles to prove he is right and you are wrong (not only on specifics but on a theory and a point of view) and he will bring his friends along to the fight to over rule you. From what I can see this isn't all that abnormal on Wikipedia.
 * Being new(ish), I can't speak to whether it's normal or abnormal behavior on Wikipedia, but after 22 years of being online in one form or another, it doesn't strike me as unusual behavior for any online community I've been involved with, bar none. (Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe so.)  There's something about this form of communication, devoid of personal contact and the many visual and audible cues that provide a surprising amount of the information we use in communicating with each other, and lacking the possibility of physical confrontation or danger if we "act out" beyond normal limits, that encourages extreme responses, fixed positions and avoidance of compromise. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I have before and will again have mature, intelligent discussions with other editor on how to improve articles. I am not deleting these articles. I am suggesting that these articles should be deleted. And so far the majority of the editors have agreed with me. I haven't asked anyone to appear here and vote. They came unprompted. I declined your collaboration because I do not have time. I have time to edit, but not time to engage in such a deep discussion. I nominated this article for Afd and for Cinema Collaboration because I decided to let other users to decide. I am not editing the articles, I am not deleting the articles. I am merely asking people to help improve them. If they decide that this article should stay. Fine, maybe I was wrong. If they decide that your version of the article is better. Fine, maybe I was wrong. Everything on Wikipedia is derived through consensus. That is the goal of the project and this is how consensus is derived. The Filmaker 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what, exactly, you're responding to here. We had discussions about the Godfather article and failed to come to a compromise, and then when I offered my hand, you took your ball and went home -- or at least you said that was your intention.  All of that is well within your rights, as is nominating an article for deletion -- but you do have to acknowledge that expressing disinterest in an article at one moment, and then turning around and going out of the way to upset the apple cart on the other is somewhat inconsistent.  Not in your arguments -- I've already acknowledged that you're making the same argument here that you made at the time -- but in your stance towards being involved with how The Godfather article is shaped.  I don't, for instance, see you nominating the myriad other film-related "popular culture" articles for deletion, just this particular one, which happens to be related to an article you threw up your hands about.  I find that -- well, to be polite, curious.  At best it might indicate a change of mind (but you've said here that you don't intend to get involved with editing the article if it's chosen as the collaboration of the week), and at worst it looks exactly as if you're using the nomination as a mechanism to strike back.  Logically, it's possible that the article in question here can be wrong for Wikipedia and that your motivation for nominating it is somewhat less than pure, so I don't advance the question of motivations so much to counter your argument about the article, as to make the rest of the community (any of them interested) aware about the potential for abuse in this process.  It may be that they might not wish to reward someone who uses the deletion process as a weapon of harrassment (if that's what it is) against another editor against whom they hold a grudge -- or they may not care.  I suppose we'll see, at some point, although it's still vague to me who decides that a consensus has been reached. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Completely fruitless.  One must learn to draw the line between informative and overkill; The Godfather and its numerous pages is already bordering on overkill.  If this info cannot fit ala guidelines into the other bazillion articles, then it just needs to stay out. María: ( habla  con migo ) 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The question I've raised is if this policy is really in the best interests of Wikipedia. Certainly the sort of information represented by the article is important in discussions about popular culture, and I'm not entirely certain that banning them outright (at least in relation to popular culture) doesn't in fact weaken the value of Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. You cannot argue that every smallest mention of "leave the gun, take the cannoli" or what-have-you is somehow strengthening Wikipedia, because it isn't.  Not only is it highly repetitive, it's also unimportant in the scale of things since it's a given that the movies are influential works of art.  As I said above, if it cannot be worked into other articles, then it should go.  The main Godfather articles certainly need more time and attention than this waste of space.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 12:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've mistated my argument. As I clearly mentioned above, it's certainly true that some of the entries in the current article are not particularly of value, and wouldn't survive the kind of restructuring and reconcptualizing I've been advocating.  I don't believe every single mention of a catchphrase from The Godfather is significant in itself.  What I do continue to believe is that the material is valuable as an indication of the ongoing impact of the film on popular culture, and that it can be used as fodder for an interesting and informative article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A few points. No one is arguing that "every smallest mention of "leave the gun, take the cannoli" or what-have-you is somehow strengthening Wikipedia". If you claim that someone is arguing that then it's clear (to me at least) that you are putting words in the mouth of someone that has a different point of view than you in order to ridicule their argument. That's bad form. Also referring to something someone has spent some time and effort on as a "waste of space" is again bad form. A final point. I don't believe it's a given that movios are influential works of art. Some have hardly any influence at all and hardly anyone would consider them art. Only some movies are influential. I think most people would agree that this is one of the influential ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Perhaps it was in bad form to refer to it as a waste of space (waste of time, perhaps?), but as for putting words in other people's mouth, I do not believe I did. The user said that deleting such material "weaken[s] the value of Wikipedia," and so I was inferring that the opposite of weak is strong, insert example just as how someone above did re: the cannoli, etc, etc.  My comment wasn't meant to be taken literally, word for word.  Also, did I say that all movies are influential?  No, obviously.  The movies refers to The Godfather series.  I apologize if that wasn't clear.  Now, if you're quite done, perhaps you can offer up an opinion on the article's status.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that user has already offered a "Keep" opinion above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * María, it's heartening to see that you believe it (may be!) bad form to refer to someone's work as a waste of space, but worrying to see that you think it may be better to refer to their work as a waste of time instead. Isn't that nearly the same bad form but with a (crude) twist? I was done (thank you for your interestingly phrased concern that I may not be though). As mentioned above, I've already offered a clear opinion (172.206.217.17). I have, however had a couple of additional thoughts after re-reading the Godfather articles, the discussion that caused the creation of this article and also this article. It occurs to me that this article is actually not "The Godfather films in popular culture", it's really more along the lines of "The Godfather in some forms of media - for example in films, in music, on TV". Popular culture is a lot broader than just those particular media. I wonder if the article could be a) reduced to something along the lines of "the impact of the Godfather on film", b) cleaned up to include attributable sources c) left as a separate article or (if that's not acceptable) reincluded into the original article as a section (on something along the lines of "the impact of the Godfather on film"). Just a few thoughts to kick about. Feel free to pick one of them, misrepresent it by radicalising it and then call it absurd when knocking them down.
 * That's an interesting suggestion. Of course as an audio-visual work of art, it's not unusual that the primary impact of The Godfather would be on 'other audio-visual forms, which is why there's a natural emphasis in the article on film and television.  I do think there's more to be said about the film's impact on the popular conception of the Mafia and mobsters and how it's changed that, that could certainly be part of a broader article -- but the primary purpose of the page is to avoid larding down the main article with excessive examples of the film's impact, and provide a place where it can be dealt with in detail.
 * What other aspects of popular culture did you have in mind? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are bordering on personal attack, so I ask you to tone it down. You make a valid point, however, one of which I had made above, by the way: reintegration of material.  As for the rest of it, I have nothing more to say on this subject.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly serious accusation and one that I certainly refute. I would defend myself but I'm unable to as unfortunately you've not substantiated it (which I definitely would if I were to accuse any one of the same thing). Instead I'll take it on good faith and try to tone it down, whilst at the same time requesting that you try and accurately represent points other people have made when disagreeing with them. Ed, it was just an observation that was aimed at a compromise really. I hear what you're saying in terms of not wanting to weigh down the Godfather article but you need to be practical. It looks to me like you've annoyed the wrong person and been ambushed. As a result you're going lose this article.


 * Delete - per Krimpet and Filmaker. It's one thing to touch in culture impact in a prose section, it's a complete other to created an entire article that does nothing but list every instance of notation in popular culture, especially when you have no sources to back any of it up; for instance the "this scene from this film looks like this scene from The Godfather" is pure original research.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This nomination violates Wikpedia deletion policy - I was looking over Deletion policy, where it says "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution."  That is the case here.  The article in question was spun off from The Godfather specifically because The Filmmaker objected to it being there as a section and wanted to delete it entirely. (See his admission above in the nominating paragraph that "I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons.")  I wanted to keep it and have it restructured as I've described above -- however I was also aware that another objection was that the Godfather article was too long, hence my decision to spin off the material into the present article. (The relevant discussion between myself and The Filmmaker about the material in question took place in January and is at Talk:The_Godfather) That means that this nomination for deletion is precisely what the deletion policy forbids, a request for deletion resulting from an editorial dispute.  That being the case, the article should be retained. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also had a chance to look over the policy that The Filmmaker cites as a reason for deleting the article in question, WP:AVTRIV, and I find there in the "Rationale" section:
 * Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. Furthermore, some items may add an unwanted distraction from the article, and the existence of a section for miscellaneous information may encourage the addition or re-addition of unwanted items.
 * It appears to me that these are exactly the arguments I've made: that trivia sections can provide entree for new users and that the current article needs to be reconceptualized, restructured and rendered into prose rather than deleted. The clear rationale behind the policy is not to eliminate so-called "trivia" sections, but to insure that they are adequately controlled.  I can't argue with that, and I haven't attempted to do so.  On the other hand, the use of this policy by The Filmmaker as a reason for deleting the article doesn't really seem to hold water: the policy most emphatically does not say "Thou shall not have trivia sections", it says that editors should AVOID them -- which is not the same thing at all.  As has been pointed out by several editors, the importance of The Godfather, probably one of the most significant films of the second half of the 20th century, makes it something of an exception, a reason to do what should otherwise be avoided.  In effect, I'm arguing that not only is The Filmmaker's nomination of this article for deletion a specific violation of Wikipedia policy, but the policy he cites to justify deletion is not relevant, since it recognizes both the existence and usefulness of this kind of material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 11:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to leave soon, so I will only be able to reply to one issue until I get back. This nomination DOES NOT violate Wikpedia deletion policy. You cited this quote "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." This quote is in reference to the situation in where I am not getting my way. There's a huge trivia section in the middle of the article, the synopsis is too long, and the article is completely formatted incorrectly in my eyes. You won't let me change. We dispute. I can't get my way, so I nominate the article for Afd on the grounds that I just stated. This is inappropriate because we do not resolve editorial disputes by simply deleting the whole page. You are to instead use dispute resolution. You (Edfitz) created a separate article all together that contained the same information. The dispute has changed. I still dispute that the information should be deleted. However, now the information centralized in one article. This is no longer a simple editorial dispute, is a dispute of the entire article. That is why I nominated it for Afd. The Filmaker 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have confidence that people can understand that a dispute about specific material when it is in article A is exactly the same dispute when precisely the same material is moved to article B, especially when it was in large part your comments about the length of the article A that provoked the material being spun off. The policy does not say "It is inappropriate to request deletion of an article because of an editorial dispute about that article," it is more general than that.  It say It is ... inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. There is absolutely no denying that we have been having an editorial dispute about this material that you want to be deleted.  Clearly both the spirit and the letter of the deletion policy has been violated by you in making this nomination. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The nomination of this article for deletion is obviously part of a previous editorial dispute but also I don't think WP:AVTRIV supports deleting this article. This article for deletion is integrally tied into the conflict over The Godfather article. Have a read of the editorial dispute on The Godfather page and read Filmaker's comments (far) above where he says he realized that it was legitimate to use this method (which I take to mean the method of deletion) to prove his theory to Ed (i.e. to prove he is wrong). In any case I don't believe that WP:AVTRIV is actually grounds for deleting this article, I've read through the discussion that framed WP:AVTRIV and the spirit of that discussion was that entire lists should not be deleted but should instead be incorporated. Even though WP:AVTRIV itself was only carried by a small majority, the overall majority of people who actually participated in the vote (i.e. both the yes and no's) agreed that entire lists should not be deleted. In addition, WP:AVTRIV simply doesn't say you can delete entire articles. Ed - I would personally recommend that you request a dispute resolution process as soon as possible, or at least do some reading on what your options are RE dispute resolution. Very shortly after you enquired about dispute resolution in the disagreement over the Godfather article, Filmaker stated he was no longer interested in that article, withdrew and a few days later came over here to request this article be deleted. If that's not a clear example of someone not getting their own way and instead using a deletion policy I don't know what is. Also, if you need someone to help improve this article I will happily collaborate with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks, that would be great. One reason I haven't started on it yet (I only created the page less than a week ago) is that I've been daunted by the size of the project, since I think a necessary first step would be to firm up as many of the worthwhile entries as possible with citations (using IMDB, episode guides and so on) so that they can't be attacked as being "original research" (although clearly if they are "original research" by Wikipedia's definition, they must be a degenerate form of it, since they're all primarily simple observational reports: I see X and I report X; why that should be considered "original research" whereas listening to, say, a director's commentary on a DVD and writing down what's been said (or even reading a book and characterizing the author's opinions) isn't goes beyond my ability to comprehend).
 * And thanks for the suggestion regarding dispute resolution, I will indeed look into that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrectly interpreting the policy in saying that this AfD is invalide due to it being a content dispute. That you and The Filmaker may have had a dispute over a section in The Godfather may be true, but that part of the policy would only apply if he had nominated The Godfather for deletion as part of a dispute over the content of that article.  Insinuating that he only nominated this article to "get his way" is not assuming good faith and we shoudln't make those kinds of assumptions.  Either way the discussion here should be about the merit of this article, and not trying to end the debate on a technicality like that - even if this was a bad faith nomination, the concerns expressed are valid as evidenced by the numerous !votes above, and the debate should continue to its natural termination.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I'm personally not insinuating anything. In my opinion insinuation is a fairly disingenuous method of argument. I'm literally, blatantly and flat out saying that that Filmaker nominated this article to get his way and the reason I'm saying that is because he's flat out stated what his motives are already above (unless I'm misreading his statements). Note that by "getting his own way" I mean deleting a list that he doesn't believe should be present in an article and then requesting the removal of that list when it is moved to it's own article. It's totally commendable that he is honest about his motives and is prepared to stand behind his actions and opinions. I understand why the motivations behind the deletion can be regarded as irrelevant, but in this case it's completely relevant in my opinion. If one of the problems with this article is that it has unattributed claims then why not put a sticker on it like Dune in popular culture, so it can be improved? If it doesn't adequately cite it's references then why not put a sticker on it like Superman in popular culture or Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture? If it doesn't have enough information in it why not put a sticker on it like The Lion King in popular culture? There are valid routes to improve an article you don't like. In this case they haven't been used and it's obvious (maybe just to me) that the reason they haven't been used is related to the original editorial conflict. I think that the article can be improved and I'll happily help with improving it. I really think it can be brought up to the quality of other "in popular culture articles" that aren't being deleted such as The Big Lebowski in popular culture, Of Mice and Men in popular culture, To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture, Dracula in popular culture, The Raven in popular culture, The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in popular culture, It's a Wonderful Life in popular culture, Ferris Bueller in popular culture and Lord of the Flies in popular culture —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Arkyan: I don't think your argument makes an awful lot of sense. The Filmmaker has said that he wants this material deleted -- that's our dispute -- and when I moved it to this new article, instead of engaging in a normal editing process, or working with me collaboratively as I suggested, he took the step of making this nomination as an alternate means of getting rid of it, as he admits in the nomination itself.  Suppose, for instance, that I was to merge the material back to where it was, in the Godfather article, the nomination for deletion would effectively be moot (since there would be no content in the article) but the dispute would still exist, and that's because the dispute is not about the article per se, but about the material wherever is should happen to reside.  Your interpretation of the policy is unduly legalistic, it seems to me, and totally ignores the spirit of the rule. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of the "rule" is that if X is a section of article Y, disagreements over whether X should be kept or deleted are not suitable to AfD discussions. However, if X is moved in to its own article, and there is a disagreement over whether X should be kept or deleted, then AfD is the place to do it.  I fail to see how the policy can be interpreted any other way, or what the "spirit" of the rule you refer to is.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My goodness, the spirit is, I believe, quite clear and self-evident: Thou Shalt Not Use the Wikipedia Deletion Process As An Alternative Means of Winning an Editorial Dispute. It's really the only reasonable interpretation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's analyze that real quick. This began as an editorial dispute between the two of you over this content as it existed in The Godfather.  It looks like you both participated in lengthy debate on the article's talk section, which is the appropriate first step in an editorial dispute.  It is evident that a resolution was not found and the debate ended in a "stalemate".  Some time passed between the termination of that debate and the creation of The Godfather films in popular culture.  Seems that you disengaged from the dispute, which is the proper second step in the resolution process.  Good.  The fact that it was nominated for deletion is clear evidence that, unfortunately, cooling down was not sufficient to end the dispute.  The final step in the resolution process then becomes seeking a consensus from the Wikipedia community.


 * Here is the fundamental problem with your assertion that taking this to AfD is in violation of the spirit of the process. What is the fundamental nature of your dispute?  Correct me if I am wrong but it appears to be "Either this material belongs or it does not".  Since you have been unable to come to an answer between the two of you, consensus from the community must be reached.  So the consensus will either be "Yes, this material belongs" or "No, this material does not belong".  Since in this case "material" is equivalent to "the article" (the entire article is the material in question) you're asking for a consensus on whether "This article belongs" or "This article does not belong", and that is the fundamental purpose of AfD debates.  So I pose a question - if AfD is not the correct place to find a consensus, then where is?   A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a possible alternative way of interpreting the policy. The statement "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." from Deletion policy could be taken to be meant literally, or even in spirit. To get a broad understanding of the spirit Ed is referring to I had a read of the article on Spirit of the law, which seems to convey what (I think) he's referring to.
 * Arkyan, I don't think that analysis is an entirely accurate portrayal of events. I don't want to just say that without backing it up so I've detailed why I don't think it isn't below
 * It's not evident that the debate at The Godfather article ended in a stalemate. It ended with Filmaker withdrawing from the debate. This is the last entry from Filmaker
 * Alright, I given it some thought and I've decided to decline. I am going to remove the article from my watchlist and forget about it for now. It is not because I believe you are right and it is not because I am giving up. However, because of recent developments (especially in the last few days) in real life, I don't have the time nor the energy to argue or patiently and maturely discuss how the article should be formatted. At this point, I'd prefer to simply finish Return of the Jedi. I may come back to this article one day. However, it won't be one day soon. In other words, do what you want. I understand that your edits are in good faith, however misconceived they may be. The Filmaker 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, some time didn't pass between the termination of that debate and the creation of this article The creation of this article is 02:14, 23 March 2007 (The Godfather films in popular culture). Filmakers withdrawal from The Godfather debate was an hour later, (03:12, 23 March). It takes a while to create a new article, especially for someone fairly new to the experience so Ed must have been working on this article prior to creating it so that hour may be longer. In any case it's a fact that the article was created before Filmaker withdrew from the discussion
 * It doesn't seem that Ed disengaged from the dispute. It's clear from the logs that Filmaker did.
 * The fact that it was nominated for deletion doesn't only indicate that cooling down wasn't sufficient to end the debate, it indicates that deleting an article is being used in an editorial dispute.
 * I would disagree with the assertion that "Either this material belongs or it does not" is the fundemental nature of the dispute. After reading the original discussion I think it's more complex.
 * In answer to your question "if AfD is not the correct place to find a consensus, then where is?" you really only have to read Concensus which definitely doesn't say that consensus is reached by AfD. I would literally have to quote the entire article to point out the other places that concensus is reached so I'll just (respectfully) recommend that you (re)read the entire article 172.206.217.17 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete &mdash; I won't waste space quoting the obvious policies. These articles are nominated for deletion all the time; they are almost always deleted, and at least one user has a serious issue with it. See Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. The best bet is to:
 * Find a fansite with popular culture databases
 * Provide a sentence stating "and the film/movies have appeared numerous times in popular culture.[1]"
 * Provide a ref or an external link to that site.


 * &mdash; Deckiller 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This advices confuses me just a little, because when The Filmmaker and I were having our dispute over this material on the Godfather talk page, and he went to you and asked you to intervene, you advised that we stop the debate, and told Filmmaker to work on the article in the sandbox and then post it. When I protested that in regard to this particular material, I didn't know what he could possible work on, since his intention was clearly to delete it entirely as being totally worthless, you responded:
 * I'm fairly certain that The Filmaker plans to revamp that section be converting it to prose and including the most notable with citations. Plus, it's necessary to have some sort of "influence/reception/references" section for an article to reach featured status, because of the comprehensiveness criterion. My guess is that, since it somehow has to be included, it'll be in the form of an expanded Star Wars Episode IV: A_New_Hope#Cinematic_influence, but with a general "influence" heading. However, most of the cultural impact information may belong on a general article about the trilogy, like with Star Wars. — Deckiller 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To which The Filmmaker responded:
 * Actually, in all honesty, no I don't plan on revamping the section. All of the notable information on the "references/reception/influence" side of the film is already present in the "Impact" section (which is already akin to the "Cinematic influence" section from A New Hope article). Which is why I deleted the "References" section outright. Because it does not benefit the article at all. Ed has repeatedly claimed that my editing is butcher-like. Yet he does not seem to have a better method for me to go about it. The "References" section needed to go. So I got rid of it. That may be POV, but he has also yet to provide a suitable reasoning as too why I am incorrect. The Filmaker 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And sure enough when The Filmmaker had finished his rewrite of the article, which got posted during a couple of days when I was inactive on Wikipedia (by you incidentally, and not by The Filmmaker -- I asked you about that and you assured me that for some reason it was standard procedure for a third party to post a rewritten article like that, which I didn't quite understand) he had indeed deleted the entirety of the material in question, except for one solitary mention of The Sopranos. That turned out to be not very relevant by itself, and hardly illuminating about the influence and impact of The Godfather, rather, it was kept in, apparently, because you had advised that something should be said on the subject.
 * Anyway, so back then you were telling me a version of what I've been saying here, that the article should be converted to prose, weeded out, etc., while now you're telling me that it's all garbage and I should abandon ship. That's a pretty drastic turn around. Why the inconsistency?
 * By the way, I'm not such a huge fan of The Godfather that I'm jonesing for a place to dive deep deep down into fan-stuff. I think it's a great movie, and an important one, and that it has had a significant impact on our culture, and that influence should be a part of the coverage of the movie on Wikipedia.  I've outlined my ideas for how the current article might be converted (they're the same as when I explained them to you and The Filmmaker back then), which would provide the coverage you (at least back at the time) seem to think was necessary.  Who knows, it's possible that when the work is all down, the article will be compact enough that it can be merged back into the main article, but in the meantime it seems a but like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to delete the article, especially considering that A) The nomination itself is a violation of Wikpedia deletion policy as an attempt to settle an editing dispute using the deletion process, and B) The policy that being put forth as the rationale for deletion doesn't say what it has been purported to say.  It doesn't say that "trivia" sections are verboten and must be deleted on sight, it suggests that they have value and should be handled with care.  I hardly call slashing with an axe a careful way to go about dealing with the question of what to do with this material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion on popular culture changed significantly when I returned to article writing about a month and a half ago. It was also capped off by Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. &mdash; Deckiller 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So is it your feeling now that 'all "X in popular culture" articles are deserving of being deleted, without consideration of their content? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, becuase they are not articles as much as trivia lists. If a new precedent can be formed that turns trivia lists into a paragraph or two of sourced, general information, that might be different. For example, the article Bushism could be considered "Bush in popular culture", but it is not made up entirely of lists (although that list of other examples is probably unnecessary). &mdash; Deckiller 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so what is the Wikipedia policy that justifies the wholesale deletion of any and every "popular culture" article? Because it's sure as heck not WP:AVTRIV, which says in part (emphasis added):
 * Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. [...]
 * Rationale
 * Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. [...]
 * Guidance
 * Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts. [...] Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.
 * So, clearly, the policy does not say that "trivia" should be deleted, it says almost exactly what I've been saying here: clean it up, prosify it, get citations, weed out the truly uninteresting and uninformative -- that's what I've said a number of times here, and back on the Talk:The Godfather page that I hoped and intended for this material.
 * There's really absolutely nothing in here that justifies deleting trivia sections. The policy expects "trivia" sections to exist, it see value in them, and recognizes that they have to be managed.  It's definite not "Go thou and delete trivia" it's more "Trivia needs to be managed, so when it gets out of hand, manage it, and in the meantime it's good to avoid them when possible."  That's hardly the same thing.
 * So, where is the justification? What policy are you citing as your operational guideline, that tells you that trivia must go, no matter its value. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deckiller, do you think it would be better to try to improve the article (or label it as needing improvement so other people, for example the editor, were clear it needed improving) to give it a chance to form that precedent or do you think it would be better to recommend it for deletion because (in part) you were having a disagreement with the editor that created it? 172.206.217.17 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I am not going to argue the point of this nomination violation deletion policy. The simple fact is this: This material does not belong and it should be deleted. This has been explained to you by multiple editors, including myself. Second, WP:AVTRIV does state that trivia sections should not be deleted without regard to content. They are speaking of valuable content. This content is not (neither is any other "in pop culture" article). The best form to state the film's culture impact is the method stated by Deckiller above. This is completely off course. Third, you have accused me of harassment. What can I say? I deny it. All of my edits are in good faith. I care about The Godfather article. I would not have come to it if I didn't. As such I would like to bring up the article's quality. However, I can not bring up the quality, because of your disputing me. The only way to resolve is to derive the article from consensus. Hence, the Afd and the Cinema Collaboration. What I just stated for you is not harassment. The Filmaker 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So it appears to me that this has become another version of our previous discussions: I try my darndest to explain my position, I provide opportunities for compromise, I allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, I open the door for various possible contingencies -- and you never budge, you never admit to error, you never acknowledge in the smallest way the merest potential for you to be wrong, you never take a single step towards compromise, you never do any single thing at any time to promote a dialogue or offer the tiniest bit of movement in your position.
 * It seems to me that "consensus" isn't about stating a position, digging in your heels, and counting votes, it's about openness, the ability and desire to give and take and learn and change and grow, and I don't see that in any respect in this conversation, nor did I in our two previous ones.
 * Here's my idea of consensus. In Imperial Germany in 1896, Admiral Tirpitz has to draft a bill which will provide for Germany for the first time to have a fleet of battleships:
 * [Tirpitz] brought to [his home in] the Black Forest a team of comrades and specialists from all parts of the navy, modelling it on Nelson's "Band of Brothers". Discussions were open and freewheeling; Tirpitz threw out ideas and then sat back, primus inter pares [first among equals], to listen.  No idea was sacred: "Every word of the draft Bill was altered probaby a dozen times in our discussions [...]," he said.  Utlimately, "we almost always came to a mutual decision."
 * That can't happen between us, I'm afraid, because it takes two to tango, and we're one short. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the policy of attribution, which obviously holds more weight than an MoS guideline.
 * 1) It is unsourced. Per WP:ATT: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Together with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the two determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view.", "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources". Again, there are no sources in this list.


 * 1) Issues with original research. Material counts as original research if it:
 * introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
 * defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
 * introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
 * introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.
 * (Usually, this is less strict with plot summaries, but this is not a plot summary we're dealing with)
 * Examples:
 * "In Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green at Nugget Bridge, a Team Rocket member "makes an offer" that the player "can't refuse." How do we know it's a reference to the Godfather, especially with the English-Japanese translation issues?
 * "The assault on Corleone's life is imitated in a nightmare Hugh Grant has in the movie Mickey Blue Eyes." How do we know? Again, have movie critics or people cited this as a direct imitation? Are there quotes in the movie saying the nightmare reminded the characters of the Godfather?
 * "In the film Natural Born Killers, the insane warden (played by Tommy Lee Jones) is named McCluskey." again, have outside sources named this an obvious comparison?
 * We have to be very careful with the way we present information like this. Saying things are homages and whatnot is not our job unless another source says so (a few cases hare and there are fine, as long as they are obvious. if the entire article is like this, then there's a problem.) For example, a site analyzing Godfather in popular culture will be good for Wikipedia to source in a sentence stating that the films have an obvious reference to popular culture. If we just cut and paste references from that site, it's redundant and excessive. On the other hand, if we just list all the times we can remember seeing a godfather reference, it's borderline original research, a policy violation (not a mere guideline violation). There are the reasons why practically every single trivia list has been deleted before. Plot summaries are usually the only thing that doesn't need to be attributed to a source outside the original work.


 * And now, for Deletion policy:
 * "Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" (a lot of this information is not-so-obvious comparisons, which are not referenced by critics and reliable sources as being homages or allusions)


 * From WP:AVTRIV:
 * "Keep in mind, however, that "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references."


 * Again, a paragraph of popular influence can probably be kept and integrated into the influence section of the main article; however, it will be so far removed from this that it won't be a merge; thus, edit history does not need to be preserved. I'm sure you can find reliable secondary sources that give a few key (not minor) examples of the Godfather in popular culture. Key as in a major influence, not mere one-liner throwbacks (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). However, the most concrete of those will probably only lead to a single paragraph of information (as aforementioned), or to a single source that should just be referenced or linked to from the main page to avoid redundancy and copyright violation (again, as aforementioned). &mdash; Deckiller 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good of you to decide in advance that a paragraph is all that's needed. Here's what I think is a better idea, rather than starting from what we want to write and going out to look for something to support that, why don't we instead take all these great data we have, work through it, eliminate the truly trivial or uninteresting, look for citations for as much of it as we can, and then examine what's left and see what it has to say about the impact of The Godfather on popular culture?  Maybe it's my limited background in science, but that seems a better strategy than deciding in advance what's going to be the final result.
 * As for the "reliable source" thing, I have to admit that this is something that seriously confounds me about the Wikipedia culture. Let's say I've just read an authoritative book on widget making in France, and I think the subject should be covered in Wikipedia.  So what do I do?  Well, I can't simply take gross chunks of the book out and post them, that would be a copyright violation.  And yet here is this authoritative source.  So I find the relevant parts of the book, I synopsis the author's (the authority's) conclusions, and I basically rephrase them without, hopefully, distorting them.  Now, I find another book on the same subject, with a slightly different take on the subject, so I do the same thing with that book, I select, synopsize, I rewrite the ideas and then I put them together with ideas of the other authority.  I put in all the citations, and there we are.  As far as I can figure, this complex series of actions: reading, considering, selecting, prioritizing, synopsizing and rewriting -- not considered original research.  In fact, it's the essence of what a good article wants to have.
 * On the other hand, if I look at a TV program, and write down what just happened, a straightforward and simple action, that's original research, and not allowed.
 * You'll excuse me, but that simply makes no sense. TV shows, films, CDs and so on are artificats that exist, they're self-authenticating, and self-authoritative.  If anyone wants to follow up on what somebody posted about the Infamous Cannolli Incident in Brian de Palma's "Dead Dog on my Trousers", you don't need a critic to tell you that it happened the source is the film itself.  Just as if I want to check up on those authorities on French widget making, I go to the source, the book that's been cited, if I want to check theInfamous Cannolli Incident, I go to the source, I check the DVD or VHS of the film.  The critic or analyst as a middle man is totally and complete unnecessary, because what the editor is contributing is not in any rational world "research", it's simply observation and reporting.
 * Well, clearly anyone steeped in WikiDogma isn't going to buy this argument, so I'm really making it to sorto of amuse myself at the absurdity of some of the precepts that hold sway in this place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deckiller, from what I understand, step 1 when you come across an article that is not attributed is not to request it be deleted. Instead, step 1 is to request that it be attributed. For me there is no getting away from that. In this case step 1 has been to request it be deleted and it's clear (in my mind) that the request to have it deleted is due to the previous conflict. The (good) examples you have given make it absolutely clear that the article needs to be improved (including having parts deleted). Step 1 when you come across an article that needs improving is not to request it be deleted. Instead, step 1 is to request it be improved (or start a dialogue to get it improved). I suggest a compromise. Give the article some time (choose your own timescale) to be attributed and improved, both of which are actions that should have been allowed and encouraged in the first place. Ed, I also (with the best intentions) suggest some deep, calming breaths.172.206.217.17 06:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A good suggestion -- but then, in my defense, you should have seen the response I wrote and then deleted!! That was really a dilly!  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is not necessarily the original research aspect (which I may have overemphasized to prove a point) or the fact that it lacks attribution as a whole, it's the fact that all that's being attributed to (or can be attributed to) is the work itself, and articles that merely cite the work itself can not stand on their own (this is basically an extrapolation of WP:NOT plot summaries). By attributing secondary sources as well, one is showing that the topic is notable for inclusion because experts and fans cite these comparisons. Wikipedia should be a tertiary source. Again, the point is not that all material attributed to the work itself is original research, it's that if it relies exclusively on the works, then it might not be notable for inclusion. From Notability: "...to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." Also, "topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject [in relation to the subject at hand; what is reliable in one topic, like a video game, may not be in another]. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes." Again, certain subtopics within an article, like plot summaries, obviously don't apply here. However, if at least a portion of this article does not adhere to these notability criteria, then the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is often questioned. And that is the case with "in popular culture" articles.

Let's put it in another perspective. An article just describing a character's plot role in a video game violates WP:NOT and will most likely lead to deletion or merge unless or until work is done. However, if that article is enhanced to include sections on how the character was designed (using, say, interviews and editorial columns on gaming sites), merchandise the character has spawned (action figures, etc), and how the character was received by gaming critics, then it can stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. Again, that can not be said about this list of times a line from the Godfather has been mentioned. Pillar one of the five pillars and WP:ENC help stress the purpose of Wikipedia as not involving collections like this. The reason many people are voting delete here is becuase we've been here many times in the past, and those situations have almost always resulted in deletion because nobody mentioned ways to turn it into a full article. Also, dogma is not formed by consensus; Wikipedia policy is. And because Wikipedia policy is built by consensus, that consensus can be changed. Just look at Attribution/Poll for an example. &mdash; Deckiller 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you really characterize 9 "delete" opinions (including the nominator) as "many", versus 2 to keep (including the page's originator, and the other one anonymous)? That's an real question, not a rhetorical one -- I have no idea how these debates go and whether this amount of turnout is a lot or a little.
 * In any event, I've made my arguments, I rather doubt I'm going to have anything new or interesting to say on this subject, but we'll see. The compromise suggested by my anonymous supporter would certainly work for me. It happens that in the real world I'm between projects for a few weeks, which means I might well have time to run through the article and start culling the herd a bit, maybe even organizing it a little tighter. (I still find the prospect of starting the research to find citations daunting.)  I wouldn't object to some of the tags that have been suggested as well (although I'm not a big fan of tags in general -- I think they tend to litter up the place).  I'm not an absolutist (anymore), I'm a pragmatist, and I'd rather half a loaf than no gravy for the mashed potatoes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, it is undeniable that The Godfather series of films have had a profound impact in popular culture, and many films reference to it. There is no other film that has influenced other films, or tv shows than this one, so listing some would create an incomplete list and listing them all in The Godfather article would make the page to big in kBytes. The topic is of great importance for film students. --FateClub 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of popularity, I can't deny that the film had a profound impact. However, in the way of cinematic influence I would think that the Star Wars films have had much more impact than The Godfather (that's not a judgment of quality, that's in terms of impact). You have yet to explain exactly why we need a list of every little reference made to The Godfather. Exactly how this information is useful (for film students or others). The Filmaker 04:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is essentially a trivia article, and it possesses little encyclopedic content.  Instead, this subject should be noted in useful prose on the film's main article how and why the Godfather films have made such an impact on popular culture.  This list is extraneous detail that does not provide any actual understanding of the impact.  It just shares disconnected examples of where the impact is seen; not at all in line with structured, cohesive information that Wikipedia is supposed to present to readers and editors alike. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - A listy hive of poor writing known as trivia. It must be wiped out. It would be far better to discuss the impact The Godfathers made on the industry and filmmakers. Alientraveller 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to know how many of the contributors here who have advised a deletion do so for broadly philosophical reasons - i.e. a belief that all "trivia" should be excised - and how many do so based on the specific content of the article in question. Clearly, the content can be restructured and reconceived (along the lines that I've indicated several times above), to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's ideals.  This new framework will, inherently, also provide more substantiveness and reduce the perception of the material as "trivial", but I wonder if that would make any difference to those ideologically opposed to the material? Ed Fitzgerald 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced, poorly organized, and full of original research. If the page were significantly improved and sourced before the nomination has run its course, I could see changing my vote.  Croctotheface 01:43, 3 April 2007 (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.