Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references (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. As per Risker's request below, I will userfy it to his/her userspace and delete the resultant redirect. WaltonOne 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial references that are uncited or irrelevant. Previous afd was "no consensus", with some support for a merge. The actual cultural impact of the books remains totally uncited, with a bunch of leading OR designed to convince the reader that it doesn't. --Eyrian 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as totally indiscriminate, irrelevant list of OR and trivia. Nothing but trifling Hitchhiker's Guide references. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another list of completely pointless trivia. Propaniac 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Judging by the archives of previous debates at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, it seems that most articles were either deleted, merged, or redirected. WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. So delete this along with all the other trivia pages in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are still 120 trivia articles). Also, anyone thought of doing a single mass afd of that category? I don't think it will work because some editors may prefer some articles, but not others. I suppose they have a better chance of being deleted on a case by case basis. Spellcast 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. One by one. --Eyrian 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But a worthy goal!Delete as above. Eusebeus 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...This suggests to me that if the "In Popular Culture" category had been deleted from this article, there would be no nomination. I'm somewhat concerned the article has been miscategorized in the first place (not all of the examples in the article refer to popular culture).  But selecting a category to depopulate and then wiping it out discourages the use of specialised categories and will likely result in overpopulation of more generalised ones.  Risker 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Pointless fancruft/indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. To repeat what I said in the previous nomination: violation of WP:NOT: indiscriminate information with no cultural importance established by any entry.  Therefore, it does not help define the topic and lacks notability.  It's a bloated list of trivia with any mention of 42 or "thanks for the fish" as fair game -- any properly referenced item that is able to prove notability of the subject matter's place in popular culture can be integrated into the main article. María ( críticame ) 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TRIVIA, original research, and difficult to maintain. Useight 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia collection/WP:5 - Could be transwikied to a movie wiki somewhere Corpx 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a list of trivia. Deep Thought could (possibly) use a mention in the main article, but other than this, I fail to see the significe of any of the information in the article. Calgary 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Glad to see an honest admission that this is part of a campaign to systematically remove these articles. I think such articles are part of an contemporary encyclopedia -- which does, after all, deal with what is in popular culture, among of course other things. I didn't like these articles when I first came here, and usually !voted against them, but I've been getting more tolerant with experience. Collecting this material in a responsible way is one part of Jimbo's goal--of making the Web not suck. This is one of the ways to do it:s orting through the trivia, & assembling the culturally relevant parts.
 * As for this particular article, there are some books that really have had an impact of popular culture, and this is one of them. The material in the article shows it. DGG (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Encyclopedias do not deal in random lists of trivia. Good reference works require editors to make judgments as to what should be left out, to show restraint, balance and proportionality. This sort of article treats should concepts with disdain. Abberley2 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a laundry list of trivia loosely connect to the Guide. An article could be written about this topic -- but this one would have to be basically entirely deleted in order to get started. --Haemo
 * Delete although titled differently, this is little different than the popular culture articles, but at least this has the honesty in title to say what it is: a list of citations (unsourced). Such a list on its own is not encyclopedic, as part of an article about something which has a notable role in popular culture, maybe. However, alas, there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable, like most of these it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as in see look at all these allusions to, quotes about, tributes, etc. so it must be. Well if it really is, find some WP:RSes to show that. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Carlossuarez46 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Yes, the books are very popular and many people enjoyed reading them and including in-jokes and references to them. That does not mean that an ever-expanding list of every time someone includes the number 42 or a phrase from the book or any of the rest of it constitutes an encyclopedic examination of the cultural impact of the books. "In such-and-such movie so-and-so said dicky bird" doesn't tell us one thing about such-and-such movie, so-and-so or dicky bird. (By the way, I swiped "dicky bird" from a Star Trek novel; someone better go add that to an article about the cultural impact of Star Trek novels on cranky Wikipedia editors) Otto4711 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia is full of such lists from popular culture such as List_of_Farscape_episodes where AfD's are shot down very quickly by fanboys.. This article differs in that it is well researched and is more than just a list of shows or a synopsis of episodes. The article could use some links and references, but there are few books that have had the recognised cultural influence of Hitchhikers in modern day science fiction and the world of computing, so I think this article is both notable and deserving of a wikipedia article. Irishjp 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Two things: first of all, List of Farscape episodes is not an ...in popular culture article, and is an acceptable list-article. Second, I think your definition of "well researched" is mistaken; there is not one reliable, third party source on this entire article.  I am not denying Hitchhiker's influence on other media, because that is obvious.  This list is full of trivial, indiscriminate info and does not belong here.  María ( críticame ) 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete An important work it's true, and there might well be scope for an article about its influence. However, one can't merely compile a list of barely related factoids and claim them as evidence of its influence - that would be original research, specifically a synthesis. An article which began with something like "HHGttG is a very influential series of books (reference)" and then launched into a laundry list of trivia would be scarcely better. Rather, it would be necessary to find sources which discuss the book's influence, and then provide a meaningful discussion of the topic, perhaps with reference to some of the examples cited by the sources. In short this isn't even the beginning of a good article. It can't be salvaged by pruning the worst of the trivia or adding a couple of references. It would have to be rewritten from scratch, and probably renamed as well, to be of any encyclopaedic value. Iain99 08:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Close "Trivial references that are uncited or irrelevant. Previous afd was "no consensus", with some support for a merge." How about, "Previous afd was closed July 22, nomination made again on July 24".  What the hell?  Why should we assume "good faith"? Mandsford 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's Wikipedia policy. And, in this case, quite correct. I stumbled upon this article, read it, and nominated it. Simple as that. --Eyrian 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mandsford has a point. According to deletion policy, "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly."  I agree that the article is worthy of being deleted, and the previous AFD did not receive as much attention as this one, which seems to support deletion.  I hope the closing admin keeps an open mind; the previous AFD closed "no consensus" and not "keep," and there have been no improvements to the article yet as far as I can see. María ( críticame ) 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I dont see how this is any different than being "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." Corpx 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's on two separate pages and an admin had already closed the discussion. If it hadn't closed "no consensus," I would be more concerned; however, I can see why Mandsford and others may cry WP:AGF violation. María ( críticame ) 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Go ahead and delete it. Perhaps the author can post it again two days after the deletion, and then to keep posting until he or she can get enough votes to keep.  Sorry, but this looks like a bad faith nomination.  No matter what rationalization is made, perhaps we should ask ourselves the question, "What if EVERYBODY did this?"  Should we just have a trial every week until we get the jury we want?  Call an administrator and ask for a neutral opinion. Mandsford 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument would carry more weight if I'd edited the old AfD, but I haven't. It's five days were up a week before I made this nomination. I can assure you,I was quite unaware of its date. --Eyrian 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Eyrian, I notice that you're an administrator. Perhaps you should, privately, run this by a couple of some disinterested fellow administrators to see what they think.  Have you considered the possibility that nominating an article so quickly, even in good faith, would be disruptive?  I accept that your intentions were good, but since you are now aware that the first discussion closed on July 22, do you not see a problem in pursuing this?  Mandsford 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would've depended on the results. Since a much larger number of people have responded (see what's been said above), I think it isn't such a bad thing. --Eyrian 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eyrian, are you telling us you made the nomination without having looked at the article's talk age, on which the previous AfD is recorded, in color, right at the top? DGG (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I saw the previous AfD; how else would I have made the correct page? I simply didn't check the date. --Eyrian 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the kind of article at which Wikipedia excels - the gathering of scattered but clearly related information into a unified article. It could certainly use sourcing - and given the length of the article, we'd be talking at least 70-90 hours of dedicated research to source the entire thing.  But none of the unsourced material is contentious, there are no violations of WP policies, and a half-hour foray on the net quickly confirmed that at least the entries I checked are verifiable. (Unfortunately, Blackberry research isn't particularly amenable to adding references to articles.) Especially in light of the fact that this article has just been through an AfD and interested editors have had little opportunity to start researching the data to confirm references or to rework the text, I feel this AfD is unnecessary and should be closed.  I'm a snails-pace editor myself, but if the decision of this AfD is to delete, then I would ask that it be userfied to my user space for redevelopment.  Risker 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as keep since this was closed just 2 days before renomination, gives the appearance of deletion bias. 70.51.8.90 04:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and speedy close - to say this is unreferenced is deceiving - the claims made are solid and some are associated with reliable sources, but there are few "references" per se. I did a quick search on the first claim (Deep Thought) and found a Scientific American article that clearly validates the claim. I will try to formalize some of the other references in the next few days. And, I might add, I'm not claiming bad faith on anyone's part, but renomonating so quickly after the previous one close should make this a candidate for a speedy close. At least give everyone a chance to get the references in there. (And to those who have doubts about the fact that HHGG is culturally significant in the English speaking world, I have a question: Have you've been living in a closet for the last 30 years? :-)) ATren 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and speedy close With what ATren says above the article will be improved, and it's obvious that Hitchhikers has had is a part of popular culture. The time elapsed since the previous AfD is not a reasonable span to have allowed this to happen, which is after all the purpose of that part of the deletion policy which states as much.Number36 05:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see a case for maybe merging the general Doctor Who references back into the main Hitch-Hiker's article, but the rest of it - Delete as trivia. - fchd 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are some genuinely notable examples here, Deep Thought, h2g2, AltaVista Babel Fish, and others. If this article is deleted, the notable examples should be mentioned in HHGTTG article. Magiclite 07:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. Whatever the nominator's intentions, it's too soon after the last AfD for any meaningful discussion to emerge.  Also, many notable examples in article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree about this being a "speedy close" - the amount of meaningful discussion in the current AfD means there is reason to pursue this to a normal conclusion, even though it is looking like heading for "no consensus". - fchd 12:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Close as keep because of inadequate interval between nominations. Or does this mean we can renominate if we didn't see the previous nomination any time now? 132.205.44.5 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  J- stan  Talk 01:40, 31 July 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.