Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations 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. The "keep" argument is that the topic is notable. The "delete" side does not contest that, but argues that the current content fails core content policies (WP:V, WP:IINFO) as well as the guideline MOS:POPCULT, to such an extent that a total rewrite would be needed (WP:TNT). These arguments are not only in the majority, but also stronger. Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterium for inclusion, and compliance with an inclusion guideline does not compensate for noncompliance with core policies. This amounts to rough consensus for deletion. But the article can (and should) be recreated in a policy- and MOS-compliant manner (i.e., well-sourced prose instead of a random accumulation of appearances of the UN in popular media).  Sandstein  09:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

United Nations in popular culture
AfDs for this article:


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

This article is almost entirely uncited, and the few refs mostly sucks, which could in theory be fixed/weeded. IMO though, the topic, UN, is to big to make a decent article of this kind, it's like having articles for US or UK in pop-cult. Well, more like Norway in pop-cult perhaps, but still. I don't know what policies or guidelines that says those articles would be bad ideas, but they probably exist (the PAG:s). Category:Works about the United Nations can cover this, or a new pop-cult cat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I see now that there was an afd about a year ago. Well, I think my reason is valid, so let's do it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the discussion, Speedy Keep and nom withdrawal last time. The page was improved during the last attempt and afterwards. As I wrote then: Keep, per topic notability of the United Nations. As one of the iconic buildings and organizations in civilization its use in popular culture is immediately recognizable. It's a fine and interesting popular culture page which enhances the understanding of the topic and its place in history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn Question. If this afd is closed as keep/nc, and I start improving the article by removing stuff like
 * In SimCity 3000, the UN building can be built as a landmark.
 * The Advance Wars series of games includes the Allied Nations.
 * In several issues of Superman, Superman is mentioned as having coordinated his activities with the United Nations.
 * United Nations Global Occult Coalition (UNGOC) or just Global Occult Coalition (GOC). A coalition of 108 organizations (such as the Illuminati and Templar Knights) formed in 1946 (initially as the Allied Occult Initiative) and under the supervision of the United Nations to destroy "parathreats" −− paranormal, supernatural, and potentially hostile objects and entities −− and see themselves as the police of the anomalous world. Made up of High Command with the Council of 108, which governs three divisions: the PHYSICS Division, for tactical operations by strike teams; the PSYCHE Division, for diplomatic relations with paranormal communities; and the PTOLEMY Division, for support purposes as well as research and development. Appears multiple times in the SCP Foundation tales and articles, sometimes as an ally and sometimes an antagonist.
 * will you then revert me without adding decent secondary sources connecting the whatever to UN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Course not, but please be selective and trim the trivial (as you've listed here) and not where the U.N. is a major or semi-major plot point, such as the Gidget film mentioned below. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's far too broad, on a par with New York City in popular culture, and Severely prune. It tries to list everything, but the kitchen sink associated with it in any way. Most Many of the entries are exceedingly trivial, e.g. Gidget is a UN tour guide . Black Hawk Down has one lousy connection: "the United Nations Security Council authorizes a military operation with a peacekeeping mandate." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Working at and showing the operation of the U.N. is a big part of the 1969 Gidget film. No, the nom and you get it wrong that the U.N. is too broad of a subject, that's just a white raven argument and an exaggeration. The U.N. building and its daily operations are much less of a subject than New York City in popular culture - for example, the U.N. is in New York City. This has been and remains a fine page and topic for interested editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This seems to be a suitable WP:SAL. It needs some more citations true. However, before an editor deletes an unsourced entry in the list I would expect them to make a sincere effort to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a suitable SAL because it violates WP:IINFO and MOS:POPCULT, and there's no evidence so far that the problem is fixable. There are apparently zero sources discussing the UN in popular culture, and so the topic fails WP:GNG. It's not a matter of simply finding the corresponding fictional work for each entry, as the sources need to be secondary, not the works themselves. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. The reason this article is a kitchen sink list should be obvious. The UN, as an object, as an institution, as concept, as a global villain, as a global hero, is so psyche imprinted that it appears in pop culture thousands of times a year. What you need isn't article deletion it is list inclusion criteria. Deleting this article would be like shooting the baby while you drain the bathwater. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your vote is invalid per WP:SKCRIT, and kitchen sink lists of the sort are not compliant with MOS:POPCULT. Avilich (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify (not yet appropriate for mainspace). This article doesn't discuss the UN in popular culture, it's an indiscriminate listing of every piece of trivia and media appearances in which the UN is featured. As per MOS:POPCULT, cultural references aren't worthy of mention simply because they exist, they need to have been discussed, not simply mentioned, in reliable secondary sources (presumably these exist?), for a decent commentary to be writable. If this article's viability is to be demonstrated, it should be rewritten from scratch, in summary style prose rather than in a simple catalog/list format with no inclusion criteria aside from the subject itself simply featuring somehow. This could possibly be done in the UN article itself, and then split from it if deemed unwieldy. Avilich (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly a worthy concept for an article - plenty of content and RS to support. The UN has been featured widely in fictional works from The 1960s on, everything including The Man from UNCLE, Doctor Who, to Superman, to James Bond. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)As much as my previous comment stands, it is true, there just isn't hte RS here to establish and support the article - so changing my vote *Delete Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It has, but sadly, next to nobody bothered covering this fact, so it makes it ORish and GNG-failing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT but with a note that the topic is likely notable - it just needs a total rewrite from the ORish list of trivia into a proper analysis. In the current form, the article is a terrible trivia listicle, very much in the style that I and User:TompaDompa have been slowly rewriting in the science-fiction realm. Sadly, I don't think any of the reference works I have on SF topics cover UN (although maybe they'd for the topic of world government). A quick source review finds this topic discussed in a Master thesis: . Unfortunately, the thesis states clearly that ". So far, only one recent article by Pablo C. Diaz has probed the image of the UN in popular culture" (and "Diaz seems to be the only scholar who has applied the issue of representation and an engagement with sources of popular culture to the UN") and later "no scholars who have studied the UN’s image have found it necessary to probe representations of the UN in popular culture". So if we trust this recent (2019) thesis, it is clear that the topic is sadly a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, the sources found should be enough to have a section in the main UN article where the current title could redirect (and WP:SOFTDELETE is preferable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A commentary on "How to kill good Wikipedia pages" by saying that nobody has written about the overall topic as such. They don't have to, no matter how many limiting factors a couple of editors are using to knock-about long standing pages. Too soon? The U.N. was established in the late 1940s and has been used in popular culture since. The move to delete entries on sci-fi topics is being opposed by many editors, justifiably and honorably. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:GNG. If nobody or next to nobody has written about a topic, no matter how potentially interesting, it is not our place to be the first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I could add to Randy's commentary about "How to kill good Wikipedia pages" with "subtitle: when Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to me because I don't like them" – The Grid  ( talk )  20:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Piotr, I admire the fairness you gave to this article by looking for sources online, even if I disagree with your final recommendation. Your contribution really should have been viewed more positively, and I hope others will seek to emulate you in the future. Pilaz (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and MOS:POPCULT. There isn't third party coverage to support this article, and the way it is written is at complete odds with the Manual of Style for an encyclopedic article.
 * Don't write it as a list. Do write it as prose.
 * Don't rely entirely on primary sources. Do focus on what's said in reliable third party sources.
 * Don't go into original research of every time the UN is featured in the media. Do provide an overview of how the UN is represented in fiction.
 * Frustratingly, many of the entries in this unreliable list have nothing to do with the UN, which is what happens when editors make no effort to create something based on third party sources. There might be a potential article to be written here about the portrayal of the UN in fiction, but there is no third party coverage to retain in service of that, and nothing to preserve. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Draftify) - The UN is certainly notable, and an article discussing the UN's depiction in fiction would almost certainly also be notable. What is not notable is a list of every time the UN has been mentioned or appeared in a piece of fiction.  Very little of the information here is actually sourced, making it seem to be mostly WP:OR, and what few sources that are included are only being used to support a few of the individual pieces of trivia. As there is no actual kind of critical discussion or information based on reliable sources on the overall topic of the United Nations in Popular Culture included in this list, there is really nothing that should actually be retained for an actual prose article or section to be created.  I have no objection for it being draftified, if someone really thinks something could actually be extracted from here for a proper article, but this largely unsourced list of trivia should not remain in the mainspace in the meantime.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Come on, this isn't TV Tropes. This is notable as a topic if someone can find secondary sources about the UN in pop culture, not just secondary sources about examples of the UN being in pop culture (that would be WP:SYNTH). That entirely hypothetical article would use about 0% of what currently exists in this article - the (again, hypothetical) editor who would write it would be doing it from scratch whether this is kept or not. Just delete it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples of the U.N. in popular culture is what the page is about. This "deletionists dream" interpretation is just that, a wordy interpretation of what editors think they are reading. This is not Synth, it's a topic with many examples on a well read and worked on page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this article is currently not WP:SYNTH. Perhaps you misread me? What it is, currently, is Not A Wikipedia Article. It's a list of trivia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic of the "UN in popular culture" is covered both holistically and specifically within movie reviews. I have found this article which takes a holistic and balanced look at how the UN is portrayed in popular culture. The website of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has a short annex with movies which cover the UN. This article by the NY-based Carnegie Council similarly explores why the UN receives poor media coverage. This indicates a limited, but not inexistent presence of general discussion of how the UN is portrayed in popular culture. And yet, I still find myself in disagreement with delete !votes. They are right to point out that indiscriminate listing violates WP:NOT, but the most tangential connections can be simply removed if found unsourced.They mention that the article does not meet WP:GNG, while ignoring that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The multitude of reviews of movies which feature the UN tend to give in-depth coverage of how the organizations is viewed: for example, this Foreign Policy piece discusses the allegations brought forward by the 2010 movie The Whistleblower, calling it "perhaps the darkest cinematic portrayal of a U.N. operation ever on the big screen". This review by the NYT explores why The Interpreter needed (or didn't need) to be shot at the UN, where "the heavily publicized United Nations setting promises an authenticity of character and plot that the movie never approaches". The 2002 Oscar-winning No Man's Land (2001 film) also features UN peacekeepers as major plot drivers, with a NYT review calling a UN blue helmet a "savage portrait of nervous bureaucratic wheeling and dealing that has little regard for the lives being gambled". My conclusion regarding big screen portrayals is that significant coverage within movie reviews exists, and when added together, they make the article GNG-compliant. Finally, there are a significant amount of documentaries and lesser-known movies which cover the "blue helmets" aspect of the UN in depth and from different angles: the Peacekeepers, Shake Hands with the Devil (2007 film), Netflix's The Siege of Jadotville (film), A Journey of a Thousand Miles: Peacekeepers, It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (academic commentary), etc. All of these come with their own portrayal of the United Nations and UN peacekeeping, and with their own reviews. I also find myself in disagreement with the claim that this article consistutes a "violation of MOS:POPCULT", because (1) it is unclear whether it has jurisdiction over to this article, since MOS:POPCULT is a guideline regarding trivia sections, not "trivia articles", and; (2)The fact that it is written in list format and not in prose is not a "violation of MOS:POPCULT": POPCULT only says that prose is "preferable to a list format", and the fact that it is allowed is an insufficient ground for deletion. Given that multiple in-depth reviews about portrayals of the the United Nations exist, my conclusion is that this article complies with POPCULT and the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article certainly does not comply with the guidelines, WP:NOT especially, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about trivia sections or trivia articles (the latter are usually content splits of the former, anyway). I haven't looked at all of your sources as of this moment, but, if there's a feeling that something can be made out of them, the current iteration of the article isn't needed. NB the various video game and music entries which are unlikely to ever receive any sort of meaningful commentary, and that your sources seem to be heavily focused on film and, more specifically, peacekeeping forces. I can see a problem with this being kept now and not being improved for 10 years because efforts were made only to find sources and not to figure out a way to actually write an article with them. Consider that draftifying or simply starting from scratch, for which there is precedent, are options on the table, and that no one who voted delete wants to prevent a prose article on the subject from being written. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, WP:NOT can and should be fixed through the regular WP:BRD cycle. I don't see a point in blowing everything up when we can simply remove the information that is currently unsourced and that you consider trivial: it is far less time-consuming and more likely to lead to the preservation of notable information. If it's broken, WP:FIXIT; and I remain of the opinion that deletion is not meant for cleanup. Pilaz (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The very concept of this article is flawed as it purports to be an indiscriminate listing of all appearances of the UN in popular culture, rather than actually discuss the institution in that setting. It doesn't follow that your proposal is less time-consuming since time is obviously needed to sort out the entries, which should not have been added in a non-policy-compliant fashion to begin with. "Not cleanup" is, of course, an essay, whereas an article failing NOT and IINFO to a sufficient extent will be in many cases a reason for deletion. I'm also not very convinced that your very specific reviews of individual movies, many/most of them concerning apparently peacekeeping forces, will contribute much to demonstrating notability, especially as the article remains fundamentally the same even after recent edits. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this article is a list and that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we follow your logic regarding your notability concerns, WP:LISTN would apply here. LISTN makes it clear that there need to be sources covering the subject as a whole, so for the sake of this experiment let's exclude the movie reviews I brought into the fold. Even when excluding specific citations such as movie reviews, there are multiple, reliable and independent sources that cover the topic holistically and satisfy LISTN: (1) the previously-cited Diaz article on E-IR, which is commonly agreed upon by both delete and keep votes to be notable (e.g. Piotrus's comment in favor of soft deletion on notability grounds, which backs the notability given by Diaz's article); (2) three pages under the subsection "The UN in Popular Culture" in Donald Langmead's Icons of American Architecture From the Alamo to the World Trade Center (2009, pp. 396-398), which discusses the image of the UN in a selected few movies and comics, along with the role of the UN building in some of them (it is an architecture book after all); (3) This academic article (in French) by Nabil Hajjami, published in the Law and Criminology Journal of the Free University of Brussels, entitled "images and representations of the United Nations in sci-fi literature", which covers how the UN is represented in sci-fi literature, a clearly voluminous part of this article; (4) This 2014 "places of pop culture" encyclopedia by Gladys L. Knight dedicates two pages to the representation of the United Nations Headquarters in popular culture. Of course, other more narrow coverage of the interlinkage of the UN and pop culture exists: Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali being described as an unlikely pop culture celebrity, SecGen Kofi Annan also inviting himself into "pop culture moments", another academic view at how the premier French spy book series depicts the UN and legal questions surrounding the UN , and most recently the speech by BTS at the UN General Assembly have generated a lot of coverage  . Even outspoken critics of the UN recognise its pop-culture appeal: Mark D. Alleyne considered "celebrity diplomacy" to be "another dimension of a U.N. propaganda" . Your concerns about WP:INDISCRIMINATE should therefore be assuaged by the full compliance of this article with WP:LISTN - and I still argue that it doesn't matter, because this article was never meant to be a list and can be written to prose by editors, and at any rate the gold standard is the GNG, which this article will easily meet. Pilaz (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you  for your wonderful and detailed analysis. There is so much playing defense when these nice historical pages are aimed at for deletion, I only wish there were more editors like you who both "get it" and take the time to explain the quality of the page to others. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What Pilaz actually proposed is not too dissimilar from what has been doing, yet your attitudes to each seem very different. Avilich (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:TNT. I don't doubt this is a viable subject for an article, but it would require a total rewrite to accomplish that goal. The current version is entirely fictional cruft and should be removed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are basing your opinion on two essays. Closers should be required to ignore the words 'cruft', 'fancruft', 'TNT', or any other reasoning based on an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TNT does cite policy-based deletion reasons though, and words like 'cruft' are often a reference to a fact that an article fails WP:NOT or that there is too much trivia, which are legitimate editorial concerns. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TNT is worth as much as Deletion is not cleanup - you can point to it to back your rationale, but at the end of the day if you don't justify its inclusion with respect to established policies or guidelines it amounts to a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Question to User:Zxcvbnm: if "the current version is entirely fictional cruft and should be removed", why is it a "viable subject for an article"? Conversely, if it is a "viable subject for an article", why would it "require a total rewrite", instead of a regular cleanup within Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle? Pilaz (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT implies that the article content is useless, but the article name and subject are not. That is to say, if the entire content of the article were deleted and rewritten from scratch, then it would be suitable for the encyclopedia, and the person citing TNT would be inclined to vote keep. However, if no one wishes to fix the issues with the article, it should be relegated to a section in the main article until such time as someone comes along and writes an encyclopedic one. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:47, 25 December 2021 (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.