Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:27, 18 July 2007 editBiggspowd (talk \| contribs)861 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:afd2\|pg=List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange\|cat=M\|text=giant trivia/"in pop culture" fork. 3 other Kubrick films with "pop culture references"...'		Latest revision as of 14:55, 7 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(18 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete''' --] 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|M}}
	<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange}}</ul></div>		<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange}}</ul></div>
	:{{la\|List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>		:{{la\|List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
	giant trivia/"in pop culture" fork. 3 other Kubrick films with "pop culture references" articles have been deleted, ], ] and ]		giant trivia/"in pop culture" fork. 3 other Kubrick films with "pop culture references" articles have been deleted, ], ] and ]. ] 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' This is as bad as many of the IPC articles that have been AFD'ed.--] 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' as ]. ] 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			* '''Merge''' notable info to ] ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup>] 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Merge + redirect''' Merge sourced info back into article and redirect. ] 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
			*Keep or delete, but '''don't merge''' into ] or ]. The whole reason it was spun off to its own page is that it cluttered up the main article.] 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''', but don't merge. ] ] 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Can you please give a reason why? Every other Kubrick-related pop culture page has been deleted. ] 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' Not the place to document every time something has been mentioned on TV - pure trivia - ] ] 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
			'''Delete''' I conclude that the litmus test for a pop culture article is whether the references are anywhere near to being as worthy as the original. It's the difference between showing cultural significance and showing a list of inside jokes. I won't write "listcruft" (other than to say that it's such a stupid f**ing word) but this doesn't apply. On the other hand, Clockwork would properly belong on a list of references to the ] because of the ironic use of Rossini's well-known composition. ] 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''', and don't merge. Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films referenced above. Definitely needs references to justify many of the suppositions. ] 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''' for all the reasons in the original AfD discussion that was reached upon consensus of keep. ] 10:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
			:*Those reasons boiled down to: it's interesting; it's better written than other similar articles; there's too much of it for the main article and it's better spun off; and it adds to human knowledge. Of those reasons, the only one that isn't an argument ] is the contention that it adds to human knowledge. I strongly contest that the article adds to human knowledge in that, as I stated in my comments below, it in fact tells us nothing about either the source material or the things that reference the source material. Even if it does add to human knowledge in some way, all sorts of things that ] add to human knowledge yet all sorts of those things get deleted every day. ] 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
			* '''Delete''' like the other three. -] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Delete, no merge''' - this is a ]. These things have nothing in common with each other beyond some more or less substantive references to a film or book. The list tells us nothing about the film or book, nothing about the various things from which the references are drawn, nothing about how they relate to each other or the real world. ] 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Keep or merge''', because the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact on culture. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">]</span><sup>'']''</sup> 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 14:55, 7 February 2023

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 --Eyrian 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange

AfDs for this article:

giant trivia/"in pop culture" fork. 3 other Kubrick films with "pop culture references" articles have been deleted, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to The Shining. Biggspowd 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is as bad as many of the IPC articles that have been AFD'ed.--JForget 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge notable info to A Clockwork Orange Giggy _UP 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge + redirect Merge sourced info back into article and redirect. Lugnuts 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or delete, but don't merge into A Clockwork Orange or A Clockwork Orange (film). The whole reason it was spun off to its own page is that it cluttered up the main article.Spylab 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but don't merge. Paul August ☎ 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you please give a reason why? Every other Kubrick-related pop culture page has been deleted. Biggspowd 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not the place to document every time something has been mentioned on TV - pure trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I conclude that the litmus test for a pop culture article is whether the references are anywhere near to being as worthy as the original. It's the difference between showing cultural significance and showing a list of inside jokes. I won't write "listcruft" (other than to say that it's such a stupid f***ing word) but this doesn't apply. On the other hand, Clockwork would properly belong on a list of references to the William Tell Overture because of the ironic use of Rossini's well-known composition. Mandsford 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and don't merge. Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films referenced above. Definitely needs references to justify many of the suppositions. Yorkshiresky 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep for all the reasons in the original AfD discussion that was reached upon consensus of keep. Turlo Lomon 10:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those reasons boiled down to: it's interesting; it's better written than other similar articles; there's too much of it for the main article and it's better spun off; and it adds to human knowledge. Of those reasons, the only one that isn't an argument best avoided at AFD is the contention that it adds to human knowledge. I strongly contest that the article adds to human knowledge in that, as I stated in my comments below, it in fact tells us nothing about either the source material or the things that reference the source material. Even if it does add to human knowledge in some way, all sorts of things that Misplaced Pages is not add to human knowledge yet all sorts of those things get deleted every day. Otto4711 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete like the other three. -David Schaich /_Cont 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no merge - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. These things have nothing in common with each other beyond some more or less substantive references to a film or book. The list tells us nothing about the film or book, nothing about the various things from which the references are drawn, nothing about how they relate to each other or the real world. Otto4711 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge, because the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact on culture. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:18, 24 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.