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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genies in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Per MOS:POPCULT, these sections/articles should be a discussion on the topic using pertinent examples.

Whether the topic has potential is irrelevant to the current rendition of the article and its past history. This is the typical TV Tropes junk containment article created because people don't want to deal with the dozens of anonymous users coming to add their bit of trivia. There is no base here from which to improve the article. There is nothing here to merge into the main article. There are no sources that would be useful in the main article. This is not a matter of improving the article. This article is worthless, and deletion is the only viable act in my opinion.

This is something that needs to be explored in the parent article and then treated as a proper content fork should its weight become overbearing. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination is worthless because it's just a drive-by rant, unsupported by policy – just a feeble vague wave at WP:INDISCRIMINATE which makes no sense as the topic is quite specific. Genies in popular works such as Aladdin are obviously quite notable and it's easy to find detailed coverage of this such as From Jinn to Genies which explores how "the free-willed, potentially dangerous jinn of Arab folklore have become the enslaved gift-giving genies of global folklore." Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." In the meantime, our policy WP:IMPERFECT applies "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Me, I'm interested to find out more about the jinn in American Gods but see that there are entries for the various adaptions. Perhaps I shall add a section for poetry such as Lepanto...

  Giants and the Genii,
  Multiplex of wing and eye,
  Whose strong obedience broke the sky
  When Solomon was king.
  ...

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pop culture trivia, delete per nom. It's not a 'drive by rant' and "vague wave" of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE if 99% of the article is entries along the lines of "In the Game Boy Advance game Mega Man: Battle Network 3 White Version, one of the Navis you must fight is MistMan.EXE, whose appearance is that of a genie. His weak spot is his lamp, and he is shown to have the power to summon souls and even release poisonous mist". Even if all of the unsourced trivial entries were removed, the overarching concept of 'Genies in popular culture' not being notable enough for a standalone article is the core problem, it would be more apt to merge pertinant examples into the main article if proper sources were found for them, of which there are currently none. Waxworker (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Waxworker has identified the question of notability as the core problem. The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters has a several-page entry about "Djinn and Genie". This together with the source provided by Andrew alone shows that the topic fulfills Wikipedia's notability standards for a standalone article. I agree with the nominator that the listings are currently too long and need improvement and sourcing. These are all solvable problems, however, so the article should be improved rather than deleted, in accordance with the Wikipedia policies already cited above. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this topic within the parent article, but that is already very long, so I think this would be worse solution compared to keeping it separate. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A massive list of examplecruft without context. If one seeks to write an actual examination of genies in popular culture they should restart from scratch at genie and spin out to this name ONLY if merited._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The concept of genies in popular culture are likely a notable concept, and the sources mentioned by Andrew and Daranios show that. However, this massive list would basically need to be completely rewritten from scratch to even begin to have an actual valid article on the topic. The entries here, almost all of which are completely unsourced, run the gamut from "the word genie was mentioned in this song" to original research like "this character looks like a genie" to completely ridiculous entries like "there is a character named Genie in this thing" and random statements that seem to have nothing to do with the topic. Not to mention entire sections on Ifrits and Marids which, not only are debatable would actually count as "Genies" in the actual folklore, but already have their own articles with the relevant pop culture sections included. WP:TNT is not an actual policy, but considering that there is basically nothing in the current iteration of this article that is actually usable in any kind of rework, is it really worth keeping this when it would actually be easier to create a new article on the topic from scratch than trying to fix this? Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TNT is not only not a policy or guideline; it is also something that Rorshacma doesn't do – they don't practise what they preach. Rorshacma has only ever started four articles from scratch; they were all over ten years ago; and two of them have been deleted. Me, I have created hundreds of articles from scratch and so I know what I'm talking about when I declare that it is much easier to rewrite or improve an existing page than to start with nothing at all. This is a fundamental principle of the Wiki method – incremental improvement rather than complete fresh drafts.

  A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what this random personal argument was about, considering that I was merely giving my thoughts rather than explicitly arguing to delete, especially since as I clearly said in my own comment, WP:TNT is not actual policy, and the only time I mentioned you in my comment was to state that the source you brought forward seemed to indicate notability. So, you essentially decided to make a comment agreeing with me that WP:TNT is not policy, but then also to personally call me out for some reason. So, uh, thanks for that? As an amusing side note, one of the two articles you mentioned I wrote that were deleted was done so because I, myself, brought it to AFD, as I had recognized that something I had written more than a decade ago did not actually have the valid reliable sourced to pass the WP:GNG and thus should not remain in the article space. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• People contribute to Wikipedia in different ways, and while you may create many articles and they don't, I don't think that makes their opinions any less valid. This discussion is about the article itself, not how many articles you make. If someone were to attempt to overhaul this article, basically everything would be deleted as it's all unsourced trivia. Waxworker (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm trying to go through and fix the individual bits as I go through - I don't think that this needs to be TNT'd entirely, but I do think it needs a definite improvement and to have sections created to cover the relevant literature on the genie in pop culture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jinn#In popular culture, when you cut out all the poorly-referenced fancruft what is left is clearly not enough to justify a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Terrible listcruft format again. Maybe something could be written here, but WP:TNT needs to happen first. PS. That said, I see User:ReaderofthePack is trying to save this, so I am willing to review here fixed version again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment, what about these beings that occur in unpopular culture, where do we list them? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coolabahapple: All a matter of notability: If you can find enough reliable secondary sources, we can write a separate article about that. I wonder what to name that to be fair, though. ;-) Daranios (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve The concept is notable, and notability is determined by existing potential sources, not the present article content which can be trimmed back and rebuilt. Haleth (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:5P1. List is well defined so WP:Indiscriminate does not apply. Sources provided by Andrew Davidson and Daranios make it clear that similar content can be found in other academic reference works including a published encyclopedia. As such, wikipedia should cover it too because we are after all an encyclopedia that covers everything and anything that any other encyclopedia would cover (even specialist ones).4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2021 (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.