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 per the obvious and overwhelming consensus among those contributing to the discussion. A proposal to move this in to the Wikipedia namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment. VanTucky 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in culture[edit]

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

Glorified trivia page full of inconsequential mentions of Wikipedia in popular culture (such as Sideshow Bob's line in The Simpsons about "oh, I'll look it up on Wikipedia!"). While the article has sources, none of them discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture at all; they only cite the fact that Wikipedia was mentioned in/by X. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Nominator's statement is an argument to improve, not delete. If there aren't any sources added by the end of this AfD which would give the article depth beyond a mere list, I'll reconsider my !vote. But I think several of the entries do a good enough job explaining themselves as-is. FCYTravis FCYTravis (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this !vote, several editors have added improved sourcing and generally made the article into a definite keeper. FCYTravis (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to the Wikipedia namespace (otherwise delete). Filled to the brim with self-references, original research, and laundry lists of dubious significance. It's an interesting read though, so maybe it should be tucked away elsewhere. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason WP:NAVEL is a guideline and not a policy is that articles about the effects wikipedia has on the rest of the world are perfectly legitimate for inclusion in any encyclopedia. This article, I would submit, is the very definition of an exception to that guideline. Also, since the article is primarily a structured, organized, and contextualized set of verified facts (mentions of wikipedia by notable sources placed in context) where is the OR? As for things of limited significance, we should be having the discussion of individual mentions on the talk page, not here. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original research aspect is inherent in Wikipedians interpreting cultural references to Wikipedia using their own "primary source" knowledge of the project. The only real analysis of Wikipedia's effect on culture that appears impartial and notable is the section on Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, which has its own article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. This article is not, nor does it attempt to be, any kind of analysis of wikipedia on culture, it is an article documenting notable appearances of wikipedia in culture. An analysis as you are describing it would be OR unless it were based on sources (which appear elsewhere in this discussion, and could be easily included). As this article is an organized and structured collection of well referenced information, I have to disagree that there is any element of OR to it. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is plenty of analysis and self-reference, just look at the section discussing the Colbert/Elephant fiasco. I disagree with your assertion that this article is organized or necessary. Reading over it, I find that it is largely unfocused, includes many individually insignificant tidbits and, save for the time-honored Wikipedia tradition of "in popular culture" articles, it lacks a raison d'être. Cultural references are not a self-sufficient basis for an article, otherwise we could have Granny Smith apples in popular culture or Farmer's Almanac in culture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny smith apples might not be a sufficiently significant cultural icon to merit an "in popular culture" article, but amanita muscaria might well deserve one, since it appears in so many places and is so distinctive; in fact, its cultural significance section is quite extensive. Articles such as "portrayals of government in popular culture" or "portrayals of the man in popular culture" might well also deserve (or have) their own articles. I view it as an issue of conforming to WP:UNDUE. When a subject generates enough notable mentions in popular culture (or just culture in general) that those notable mentions cannot be properly treated in the main article without giving them undue weight, a sub-article is warranted. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we will continue to differ on this point. When creating a Wikipedia article on a popular subject, the author must inevitably decide how to handle that subject's cultural significance. The best case scenario would be to rely on secondary and tertiary sources for analysis and convey the general consensus of critics and the general public. The optimal way of handling brief mentions in cultural works would be to contextualize them within the main body of the article, where appropriate, or to ignore them, when they don't add any information or interpret the subject from a novel perspective. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia, all the trimmings go to the sausage factory of "in popular culture" articles where they bloat and rot as passerbys add irrelevant bits and content editors politely avoid molding them into a useful, cogent inventory. So we have Wikipedia in culture, not because we require a narcissistic account of all the times someone has quipped about Wikipedia in a comic or tv show, but because it's sourced info that some editors just can't bear to let go. This phenomenon is detrimental to Wikipedia, unless you buy into the logic that we should forgo any pretense of working on an encyclopedia and embrace the popular view that this is the world's greatest dumping ground for useless info, conveniently referenced by Google and not taken seriously by any academic establishment. (OK, that last part was a bit off-topic, but you get the idea). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I see your point here. If the effect on culture (or cultural ramifications, such as the cultural effects christianity has had on the world, documented in numerous articles) have sufficient information and independent notability to generate a well-sourced, encyclopedic article, I have to respectfully disagree with you and submit that that is well within the scope of wikipedia. As to whether the article will be a constant battleground for wikipedia-fancruft... well, we're in perfect agreement there. I think the trick would be that our discussion would be most effective on the talk page of the article debating whether individual mentions of wikipedia (such as the simpson's ones or the penny arcade one) are notable and significant enough for article inclusion, rather than whether the article should exist/exist in namespace or not. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, other matters in in the article have been discussed in independent, non-trivial, reliable sources such as Uncyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my asking, but is Uncyclopedia regarded as a reliable source? Granted that I wholeheartedly approve of your supporting me, but that statement leaves me a hair confused. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia? Please tell me that you were being facetious. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. Obviously uncyclopedia is not a reliable source. The point being made is in regard to the claim that the only major topic in the article that has been discussed in independent reliable sources is Truth in Numbers. The point is that Uncyclopedia and its existence as a parody response to Wikipedia has been discussed in reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh! Uncyclopedia as a phenomenon has been covered in reliable sources. Oops. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve, it's not an indiscriminate list and can be sourced LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep First of all, there's no fundamental problem with trivia. The problem is poorly sourced trivia, and this is well-sourced. Second, I can easily give examples of articles which are not currently cited in Wikipedia in culture that are secondary, reliable sources that discuss precisely this. For example, here is Reuter's article. Other relevant articles include [1] which discusses how Wikipedia covers pop culture extensively. this one shows the demographics of people who read Wikipedia. All of these could easily be used in the article proper. Moreover, WP:ASR is a style guide, it in no way says we can't have articles that discuss Wikipedia. What it prohibits are things like on the Siegenthaler page saying and "this page was vandalized" as opposed to "Siegenthaler's Wikipedia page was vandalized." The original research claim holds no water since the mentions in question are mainly explicit mentions of the word "Wikipedia" and thus require no synthesis (unlike many trivia lists where one needs to get a joke or reference). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Trivia is inherently unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia because of its dictionary definition: "unimportant matters" (M-W). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't play language games please. Trivia and trivial have the same root. They are not the same meaning at all. (And for a very timely little piece about this matter see Durova's latest blog entry). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "trivia (n. pl.) : unimportant matters : trivial facts or details; also singular in construction : a quizzing game involving obscure facts." Check it if you don't believe me. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • And once again we see how most dictionaries don't do nuance very well. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article isn't titled "Wikipedia's effect on culture" but "in culture", and it presents a solid, well-sourced overview of just that. Per FCYTravis, improvement might be in order, but no need for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic "Wikipedia in culture" is not notable. Wikipedia is notable, but the topic Wikipedia in culture is not. I don't see any sources that discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ya know, I really hate the whole "notable" meme. "Notable" is meaningless. The proper word is "encyclopedic." What is *encyclopedic?* This article is ostensibly a discussion of Wikipedia's appearances outside its own realm, and the ways in which other cultural entities have made use of Wikipedia in their own works.

  I see this as one of the most encyclopedic things that can be written about Wikipedia. We can gain immense knowledge of the way Wikipedia is perceived by the world, by looking at how the world's culture has made use of us. I mean, jeez, xkcd has had some really interesting and insightful comics pertaining to Wikipedia, and they tell us something about the value and the relationship that people have with this project. Seriously, you don't think it's interesting that xkcd pointed out that the humble ((fact)) template has become common lexicon? Can you honestly tell me that you haven't succumbed to The Problem with Wikipedia?

  Wikipedia has become a prominent entity in popular culture precisely because so many people in so many places around the Earth find it useful. An article which documents the ways in which people have discussed, riffed, parodied, celebrated and commented upon Wikipedia, is an article that gives our project a sense of history, a sense of place and a sense of worth. It is an article that tells part of Wikipedia's story, and our story deserves telling. FCYTravis (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep unless speedy keep can be justified. Wikipedia is notable. Plenty of the sources on this page are notable (in fact most of them are). The fact that Wikipedia has had an effect on the rest of the world is also notable. The issue of whether specific mentions are or are not notable is an issue for the maintainers of that article to debate on their talk page, not an issue to demand removal of this article. This article is encyclopedic, well sourced and notable. It also provides a useful outlet to avoid WP:NAVEL references in all of the many references to Wikipedia that crop up in the outside world. From the perspective of a paper encyclopedia, the effect wikipedia has on culture and cultural references to wikipedia make sense with or without it needing to be read on wikipedia at the time, which is why narcissistic self-references are normally avoided. This article is not that at all, and merits inclusion. I disagree with nom on all points; mentions are not inconsequential, and wikipedia's effect is defined in terms of its mentions in culture, such as the colbert report section, and the 'in context section'. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I've added more secondary sources including relevant articles from major newspapers such as the New York Times. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia space This topic deserves an article, but the article is just a list of trivia and OR. Moving it to Wikipedia space seems the best solution for keeping this material which isn't encyclopedic, but is highly relevant to Wikipedia itself. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others above who've put it better than I could have, especially JoshuaZ and HatlessAtlas. The list we have here is eminently useful, sourced, relevant, and discriminate. Where good content is too lengthy to reasonably fit into the article of a notable subject, a topical split like this is one way to resolve that. If Wikipedia were the only subject with an article like this, I'd worry about WP:NPOV, but looking at Category:In popular culture this is clearly far from alone. Consensus at the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture appears to remain relevant. One point, though, just to focus things: I think this is less about whether to keep/delete, and more about whether this page should be hosted in the main or Wikipedia namespace, as the page is obviously useful to us one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per overwhelming prior consensus that is unlikely to have changed. I find this nomination, and the nominator's other actions regarding this article disruptive. Despite an overwhelming keep in the last nomination, Sceptre wiped it out shortly thereafter with a redirect, and earlier today, attempted to wipe it out in the same manner, then initiated this AfD. I find such forceful attempts to delete articles despite clear evidence of the community's support for them an abuse of the deletion process and of the community's time. This kind of behavior is and antithetical to Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building. AfD's purpose is to get rid of articles that are widely agreed upon to be bad for the encyclopedia, not to take repeated potshots at articles you don't like. Maybe this isn't the right place to be leveling such personal criticism, but I still feel it's warranted. I don't like it when people try to get their way through just shoving, shoving, shoving.--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed noms trivia tag as prejudicial and inappropriate this morning. See the articles talk page for more detailed rationale. If the outcome of this AfD discussion leads to consensus that the article is nothing but indiscriminant trivia, I will have no objection to the tag being restored. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep X in culture does not necessary imply that the material is trivia. (and for that matter, appropriate articles dealing with trivial matters that are none the less notable are acceptable content for Wikipedia--if anything, they're our specialty--we are hardly the encyclopedia of highest quality for serious academic topics, but we probably are the best for popular culture. ) I am pretty much in agreement with Father Goose on the merits of this nomination. DGG (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wikipedia:Press coverage, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in comics, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in webcomics, Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, et al. --Stormie (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per clear consensus reached in earlier discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per what others have said. Anton Mravcek (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the article is sourced, and the subject is encyclopedic, I see no legitimate reason to delete. We can't delete articles based on a single subject evaluation as "unimportant". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia-space. Essentially, this article consists of documenting every mention of Wikipedia in popular culture (or at least the majority of such mentions), which strikes me as inappropriate content for an encyclopaedia article. It's mainly of interest to Wikipedians like ourselves, rather than the average reader; it also raises issues of self-reference and systemic bias, in that we don't have '...in popular culture' articles that are anywhere near as detailed as this one about other subjects. While a more tightly-focused article on Wikipedia's impact on culture (which is encyclopaedic) would be acceptable, this is not that article; to be blunt, it's not really an article at all. As such, in its current state - which boils down to listing every time someone, somewhere said the word 'Wikipedia' or made a comic about it - it is inappropriate, and should be moved from article-space. Terraxos (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2008 (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.