Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

University of Florida in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since this article lacks any sources that actually discuss the topic of this article - UF place in and influence on popular culture - it's pure original research by synthesis as it's composed purely of editor-selected examples most of which are not supported by reliable sources. In fact, most sources are inherently unreliable (e.g., IMDB) and are broken links anyway. Like nearly everything other topic in or proposed to be addressed by an encyclopedia article, if there are a substantial number of reliable sources that substantially address this topic then it may be a notable topic. But as currently written the article has no such sources and it has been in this state for several years so it's time to delete it and merge the handful of salvageable examples into the main UF article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After reviewing all of the sources currently in the source, these are the only ones that I can find that substantially mention UF (i.e., don't merely mention that the item was written by an alumnus or involve one or more people from the state of Florida):
 * is a blog post that purports to compare the pop culture...something of UGA and UF. I can't find any indications that the author is an expert of any sort or why we would use this as a reliable source.
 * is a news article about a small independent film that takes place in Gainesville. Its only connection appears to be that the author of the book on which the film is based taught at UF.
 * is a review of a movie in which the reviewer mentions a "great running gag about Florida Gator fans." I can't seem to find any information about the author or the site's editors to determine if the source is reliable.
 * is an article on Snopes.com. I would assert that Snopes is generally a reliable source but this particular source doesn't speak very strongly to the pop culture influence or role of UF since the article explicitly disproves an urban legend that erroneously associates a Tom Petty song with UF.
 * is news article that briefly mentions that a cartoon strip (Blondie) that had some UF buildings in the background in one daily strip because the illustrator's son was a UF student.
 * Those are the best sources that are currently in the article and those aren't nearly good enough to justify the notability of this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject of list articles (here, "the University of Florida in popular culture") ought to be notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of the specific stated subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG, and speaking as an alumnus of the university, I see a collection of random mentions of or references to the university in popular culture that vary from trivial to vaguely embarrassing.  I see nothing worth saving.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are certainly problems with this article, but I don't yet see an analysis here that will show us the right way forward. It ultimately isn't relevant or useful to ask whether "University of Florida in popular culture" is in and of itself a notable subject. This subtopic obviously a WP:SPLIT from University of Florida, and it is limited to notable media. In that sense, it is not only (in theory) valuable information for the main UF topic, but also (in theory) encyclopedic cross-referencing in that it is gathering together different topics that all touch upon a central subject and that wouldn't otherwise be linked here. Now for the bad news... Nearly all of the cultural references are completely worthless. We do not care if a UF shirt or hat happens to be visible in a movie (and it saddens me that anyone would waste time adding that to an article), we do not care if UF is name-dropped as part of a character's backstory in expository dialogue. None of that is substantive and none of it is really about UF. I think that completely wipes out the cinema section (there are a couple that say they're about faculty, but not that they actually depict them as faculty) and all of the television references. But it seems that the novel Rubyfruit Jungle actually uses UF as a significant setting (and it saddens me that anyone might waste time removing that from an article), as does the Haldeman novel listed, and maybe one or two others under the literature section. The "other" section is not really appropriate for this subtopic because it's not really about depictions of UF in cultural works, and most of that should also probably be cleansed as insubstantial or be incorporated elsewhere (the bit about the mascot would belong in an article about the school's athletics, for example). So that leaves me agreeing with the nominator and the above commenter that this makes no case for a standalone existence, but there are at least a few entries that should be merged back to University of Florida (or other related UF articles) in highly condensed form. This could be done by listing in one sentence the notable books/books by notable authors that are set there, for example. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "popular culture" section was added to the main University of Florida article on June 18, 2009: ; prior to that, there was no similar section to be found in the main article: . The stand-alone list was created on June 19, 2009: .  The content appears to be a scratch creation by as a single editor, and was spun out within 24 hours.  In 2009, WikiProject University of Florida was very active, and had recently concluded a major article creation/expansion phase, and this article's creator was one of the two or three most active WP:UF article creators.  This article was created in apparent emulation of a series of these articles created for other universities: .  When I started actively editing in 2009, WP:UF had more such weak sister articles; most of the weak articles and lists have long since been deleted, merged, or significantly improved and upgraded.  There is insufficient noteworthy content here to support a stand-alone list article; while the movies, books, etc., may be notable, their mentions of and/or references to the University of Florida are mostly trivial.  As noted, there aren't more than three or four references in the entire list worth preserving anywhere (Robert Cade is a Good Article, and is referenced in both the main university and sports program articles; the reference to ESPN's power mascot is fanboy trivia).  Frankly, I am surprised this list survived as long as it did.  Relying on the self-evident notability of the University of Florida to support a list like this is a stretch; and the list subject does lack significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- that may not be determinative in a list article AfD per WP:LISTPURP and other relevant list guidelines, but it should be part of the analysis.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The use of a major academic institution as an important setting or a major plot elerment in multiple notable works is an appropriate subject for a list article. We've dealt with these before, and when the material is non-trivial, we've usually kept it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been asked on my talk page to  comment on whether "more than3 or " of the items are non0-trivial. Triviality is a difficult concept to establish--I understand it to mean "used in the background in an unimportant way". This would certainly exclude all the mentions of Tshirts, The way to deal with that sort of content is to remove it, not remove the article.  Perhaps the residue will be 3 or 4, perhaps it will be 10, but in either case that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't hound you because you've !voted differently than I did but it would be nice if you could more concretely justify how this topic meets our noteability guidelines. In particular, the section of those guidelines addressing stand-alone list article states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."  The article at hand cites no reliable sources that have discussed these items as a group or set.  Without such sources, I simply can't understand how this topic merits an encyclopedia article under our current paradigms of (a) notability and (b) prohibition of original research. ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it that people always overlook the first word of that quote from LISTN (not to mention its whole second paragraph)? It's not a requirement, it's "one" way to analyze list content, and it's more appropriate for some lists than others. I can't say it makes a lot of sense here. If there were 100 notable films all verifiably set at UF, it would be silly to think we couldn't list them together just because no reliable source have ever published a "The University of Florida in Film" treatise. Of course, we don't have 100 films here, we have at best a handful of works that can all be covered in a mere couple prose sentences at University of Florida. So let's not fruitlessly froth over notability, given that there's a simple solution that will still delete this while preserving (per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE) what little content is worth preserving. The best counterargument to DGG is that nearly everything in this list is trivial and so there's no basis for maintaining it as a standalone list instead of a concise subtopic section in the parent article. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are enough notable films that have significant relationships to UF to warrant a "List of films connected to the University of Florida" article then I'd be fine with that. But the article in question isn't framed as a true list article listing only notable items but it's framed as a regular article about a cohesive, notable topic and it fails WP:N.  And, as you note above and as I already noted in the nomination, it's also full of trivial items that are largely unsourced or poorly sourced information.
 * And you're free to disagree or ignore others but please don't attack others or characterize their engagement as "fruitless froth." ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2015 (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.