Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knife fights in popular culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Knife fights in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article is a list of events that lacks sources that discuss and analyze the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with Blast Ulna, article is WP:SYNTHESIS. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not encyclopedic material, and it cannot be allowed to return to the other article. Mintrick (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to knife fights - plenty of notable knife fights in movies and films and I suspect there is stuff written about some famous ones, but no need for separate articles. I am really unimpressed with Mintrick's vote above since he created the article in the first place. This suggests that all you view other IPC splits you have initiated in the same way and hence were not in good faith. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has been raised before. Simply put, I do not believe the material is encyclopedic. However, since a variety of new editors seem to like adding this information, I don't necessarily think it is always prudent to immediately delete it. I used to simply vote against a merge. However, since then, I have come to realize that AfD is a sufficiently open forum to allow me to voice my own beliefs about the material. If the consensus is that it should be deleted or kept, then I follow that guiltlessly. Mintrick (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, which, pray tell, of the IPC articles you have created you believe may be encyclopedia-worthy? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion? None. But I am trying to be sympathetic to people who disagree. Creating the articles strikes a compromise between my own desires and those of people who like to add the IPC references. I am deeply alarmed that you seem so ready to string someone up for trying to compromise against his own opinion. Mintrick (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absurd, you did the same with Vercingetorix, if there's a content dispute it needs to be resolved in the article talk page, not indiscriminately split articles. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't indiscriminately split articles. Mintrick (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a matter of opinion. What are your criteria then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically (now) I only split articles that have large IPC sections. Mintrick (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Casliber, if you think there might be something written about famous fictional knife fights, pleas find these sources. Otherwise, without sources discussing the subject I can't see how it can be kept in the encyclopaedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did have a look online for some discussion on Westside Story's knife fights as I thought there'd be something there, but I think a library will be where I need to go. You've seen Westside story then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Casliber, if you think there might be something written about famous fictional knife fights, pleas find these sources. Otherwise, without sources discussing the subject I can't see how it can be kept in the encyclopaedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically (now) I only split articles that have large IPC sections. Mintrick (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a matter of opinion. What are your criteria then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't indiscriminately split articles. Mintrick (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, which, pray tell, of the IPC articles you have created you believe may be encyclopedia-worthy? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has been raised before. Simply put, I do not believe the material is encyclopedic. However, since a variety of new editors seem to like adding this information, I don't necessarily think it is always prudent to immediately delete it. I used to simply vote against a merge. However, since then, I have come to realize that AfD is a sufficiently open forum to allow me to voice my own beliefs about the material. If the consensus is that it should be deleted or kept, then I follow that guiltlessly. Mintrick (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Knife fight, why was this split in the first place? I don't see any discussion on the talk page of the main article for a split. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elementary WP:BRD. I suggest you read that. Do you want me to notify you before every edit I make? If there's a problem, I discuss it. Almost always, there isn't. Edits that are not believed to be controversial (and my experience makes it clear that these splits generally aren't) don't need to be discussed beforehand.Mintrick (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there was a problem, someone didn't agree with you, and you just reverted it right after. That is a dispute that wasn't discussed. The Bugbear article is another. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple matter of clarification that was cleared up immediately. The issue of bugbear is a deliberate misstatement of fact; there was plenty of discussion there. Mintrick (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there was a problem, someone didn't agree with you, and you just reverted it right after. That is a dispute that wasn't discussed. The Bugbear article is another. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elementary WP:BRD. I suggest you read that. Do you want me to notify you before every edit I make? If there's a problem, I discuss it. Almost always, there isn't. Edits that are not believed to be controversial (and my experience makes it clear that these splits generally aren't) don't need to be discussed beforehand.Mintrick (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this material. It does not rate a Merge back. --Stormbay (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and build up. Knife fights form a centerpiece of many film and other media, and notable parts of notable works ought to be included in an article like this one. When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. DGG (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite saying notable about fifteen times in that post, you never actually pointed out how independent sources had written about the appearance of knife fights in popular culture. Which is, you know, what notability is actually about. Mintrick (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree that "discussion of them is encyclopedic" if we can find sources that discuss them. I tried, but couldn't. If you can find some sources that discuss knife fights as a "notable cultural artifact", please add them to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite saying notable about fifteen times in that post, you never actually pointed out how independent sources had written about the appearance of knife fights in popular culture. Which is, you know, what notability is actually about. Mintrick (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I searched and it seems that knife fights are not analysed independently of the movies in which they occur; for example searching for "From Here to Eternity" "West Side Story" "knife fights" yields only 11 hits, one of which is the Wikipedia article. Therefore this article is WP:SYNTHESIS and should be deleted. Abductive (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SYNTH. Could consider merging back but really it is isn't very encyclopedic. "in popular culture" seems to be the new and improved version of "trivia". Alas, it appears that Wikipedia will never know "the simple joys of a monkey knife fight". -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to knife fight anything that's sourced or sourceable, and drop the rest. So far, the only thing sourced is the item I just added. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not enough noteworthy content for a merge. Only one reference out of the many extremely trivial facts.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.