Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Stooges in popular culture - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just trivial listcruft/clutter at best. If there is any important notes, they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even seeing anything significant enough to merge to the main article. There are three references for the long list and they do not appear to be reliable. The Three Stooges IS popular culture. These lists of the slightest nod towards something else are pure trivia. WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Drawn Some (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename to Three Stooges legacy. Their continued influence and role in popular culture is certainly notable and worth including on Wikipedia. The article needs to be made more encyclopedic, no doubt, with sections and paragraphs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say that a topic like "Three Stooges legacy" or any topic documenting their influence on popular culture, would be so important as to belong on the main page? If that page is too long, then a debate could be started there about spinning off a relevant sub-section into a sub-page. But this page doesn't even remotely resemble a sub-page...I think work is needed to turn it into prose and make it encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

And the easiest way to work on something is to not delete it. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no meaningful difference in difficulty between in-place editing and a user-space move. That argument is spurious. Mintrick (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to support leaving bad material in the main namespace more often than not, because I think that's how wikipedia works best, but this case seems just too pronounced, because (1) the content is bad (2) the very name of the topic is problematic, and honestly (3) I don't think much would be lost if it were outright deleted: the only value I see to the material being kept is as a list of "things to potentially incorporate into an encyclopedic narrative"--and userspace is the appropriate place for such lists, not wikipedia itself. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article - seems to be very bias towards children's shows but it is still noteworthy (if only as testament to their lasting cultural impact) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no conceivable way to merge any of this. If we keep, we'll just end up back here again. (For a technical reason, it lacks encyclopedic purpose)Mintrick (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChildofMidnight; obviously notable and worthy of a non-paper tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a complete lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources constitutes obvious notability. Mintrick (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Stoogeology by Peter Seely, Gail W. Pieper a 272 page book that "provides an in-depth look at their comedy and its impact on twentieth century art, culture and thought" seems to refute the idea that there is a lack of substantial coverage. Have you looked for sources? They exist in a multitude. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fancruft. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Three Stooges. I personally think that little material is worth merging (it's a list, mostly unencyclopedic) but if anyone feels very strongly about keeping the material I would recommend weaving it into well-written prose on the main page...that's the only way I think it is appropriate to retain the material here. I am firmly in favor of merging or deleting the "X in popular culture" pages in general. Cazort (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another IPC article without any notability. An encyclopedia is not the place to document every time ____ is seen in popular culture Corpx (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added note of a book covering this subject in particular above. There are also sources like this [1] and this one [2] related to the king of pop. So it's not hard to find very substantial coverage of this highly notable topic. Whether it should be a list article as it is now, or made into a standard coverage of the subject is an editing decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The delete votes are puzzling. If there are only 10 IPC articles permitted in Wikipedia, then this would almost certainly be one of them. They've been covered in any number of derivative media, had homages in others. No objection to trimming content that doesn't meet WP:V, but claiming non-notability for these is just inappropriate. WP:IPC supports the article in substantially its current state. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD was the most constructive way to handle this issue, but now that the discussion is open I do think there are multiple issues with keeping this material/page as-is. As it's currently written, it's a list and unencyclopedic. The material would be better written as prose and incorporated into a narrative discussing underlying themes. Wikipedia is not a random repository of knowledge--it's a WEB of knowledge which means, rather than presenting random lists of facts, it should tell a story about each topic and describe how the topics relate to each other, and discuss unifying themes. I see little or no value to pages that are little more than collections of random facts. That's what's behind my "puzzling" vote. Cazort (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also suggested merging as an option, which isn't really a delete !vote. Deletion is only for when WP:ATD has failed, and many others made no attempt to suggest a good alternative as you did. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I meant that a merge would be only appropriate in the case that someone had rewritten the material into encyclopedic prose. I think that is a necessary starting point if someone feels very strongly about keeping the material and does not want it deleted--because in its current form I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. I suspect this isn't going to happen overnight, so maybe a merge the way I envision it would be unrealistic, and a delete + userify would be better...then people can work on making it into prose and weaving it into the main article. Cazort (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge eminently notable, though not one of my favourite acts so WP:ILIKEIT does not apply here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This subject is clearly notable and there is some worthwhile content here. It should perhaps be merged with the section The_Three_Stooges#In_other_media. I don't deny that there are some non-notable entries in this list, but it needs a cleanup and integration, not deletion. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable spinout of the 153 kB The Three Stooges, and send to WP:CLEANUP to address style issues. Perhaps rename per Child of Midnight. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree, the article requires a lot of work. But the deletion policies are clear. Deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of the topic -- not the merits of the current article. Some stuffy people may disagree, because the stooges seem low brow, but a familiarity with the stooges is part of being well-educated. This is why the current version of the article includes one hundred or so tributes to them. I just did a google scholar search on the three stooges. Scholars study the influence of the three stooges. Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subsequent cultural references to a highly notable group of artists is an appropriate subject for an article. The references that Geo Swan found establish the notability of this as a topic even by the most rigorous of standard criteria. DGG (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan's search clearly demonstrates the notability of the three stooges. However, I am unconvinced that a page with the topic "Three Stooges in popular culture" needs to exist. ChildOfMidnight's recommendation to rename to "Three Stooges legacy" makes sense. But more importantly, the current form of the content of this page is unencyclopedic. Do you have a strong rationale for keeping the article in the current form? Or a strong objection to deleting and then userifying it, with the intention of weaving it into a narrative? Cazort (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename to Three Stooges Legacy, certainly edit. - Vartanza (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, and not "just trivial listcruft/clutter at best". It is troubling that none of the delete !voters seems to have attempted to search for sources, nor does the nom (?). May I add that the article originated as a spilt from The Three Stooges 11 November 2007 as the size approached 70k, so merging back is going in circles. Could be a good solution to rename to Three Stooges Legacy, as the IPC title semms to trigger idiosyncratic reactions. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culled to verified and cited items leaves three references that, if pertinent, can easily be merged into the Three Stooges article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:55, 18 June 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.