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.
Yet another pop culture trivia collection that doesn't serve much purpose besides being a massive list of cluttered trivia. RobJ198106:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepKeep. The article was spun off from World War III a year ago[1] but has kept growing. While I oppose the creation of new popular culture listcruft, there has to be some accommodation for legacy articles spun off from a parent article in good faith. The topic has been the subject of at least one scholarly work which has numerous citations in Google Scholar.[2]Dbromage [Talk]07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this source about the use of the concept of an apopalyptic future war in popular culture could be located and used as the core of an article about the concept, I would be inclined to keep. In its current form, the 'article' is a laundry list of times WWIII is mentioned, attributed, referred to, or implied, and as such should be deleted -- saberwyn21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) This has been addressed[reply]
Keep. There are no problems here that cannot be solved with editing, or that require the removal of this page and its history from the encyclopedia name space. - Smerdis of Tlön13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classifying any conflict that happens in the future in movies as World War III is WP:OR to me. This is basically a list of all the wars fought in the future in fiction. Corpx14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, and a notable subject in pop culture. If people are so against "...in popular culture" articles, I suggest they lobby for the official creation of a policy banning such subject matter. 23skidoo15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existing policy, WP:NOT#DIR, is in the main sufficient to deal with most of these trivia traps. WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive argument for keeping. As has been noted above, if there are ources that discuss WW3 in pop culture as a concept, then an article on the concept would undoubtedly be quite welcome. Whereas a listing of every future war from every piece of fiction is not. Otto471117:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is an encyclopedic coverage of this topic, it may be evolved in the main article, with possible spin-off. Right now it is just a laundry list wit some unreferenced trivial general remarks. `'Míkka20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most Wikipedians are too young to remember when we really worried about "World War III", but I agree that this should and could easily be sourced. A mere 25 years ago, before we worried about environmental catastrophes, we worried about being nuked. The years between 1950 and 1990 saw a lot of speculation about wars in which we would either be annihilated or occupied. Given that this was a legitimate topic for countless books (another thing Wikipedians tend not to be interested in) and movies (some interest), this has the makings of a great article. Mandsford00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the past, these articles have been challenged for lack of ref.s to prove notability of the general subject. Here one is provided, though some of the above comments ignore that. All further questions are a matter of editing. WP:NOT#DIR, is not a policy against these article, as they are not collections of miscellaneous unrelated information, but collections of information about related information of topics with a common theme. The people opposed to these articles are currently trying to change WP:NOT so it will read the way they want it to, but at the moment there is no rule that can be cited against articles such as this. DGG (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will struggle to assume good faith here and believe that you aren't delibrately trying to mislead people by saying that NOT#DIR doesn't apply to these articles, when it's clear through the deletion of close to if not more than 100 of these pop culture articles as directories of loosely associated topics that NOT#DIR applies. No one appears to be saying that a sourced article on the concept of WW3 in pop culture would be unacceptable, but, again, this is not an article about the concept. It is a list of fictional military conflicts that take place after 1945, many of which are not even called "World War III" within the fiction from which they're drawn. Otto471121:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but seriously trim. Also consider renaming to "...in fiction" rather than "...in popular culture" and removing any references that aren't related to fiction. User:Corpx's concerns of OR are real, and much of the content is OR. Something is only verifiably a cultural depiction of World War III if it is either (1) explicitly called this in the depiction or (2) referred to as such by a reliable secondary source. Many of the entries on this list don't appear to satisfy either of these two conditions. On the other hand, the question of how the prospect of such a war is portrayed in fiction is clearly a notable one that should be explored. JulesH11:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think JulesH's principle for sorting out the right ones is a good idea. In this particular article, many of the items really belong in another place, such as nuclear war in ... or future war in ... DGG (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although cleaning up such articles is noble the appearance of WW3 in fiction is so massive that it is worth to have leaf article just for sanity of editors of the main text. Pavel Vozenilek18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've given the article a quick rewrite. Could the "delete"s please take a look at it? The topic is clearly notable, as stated above a quick search on Google Scholar or Books will show sources that discuss WWIII in pop culture as a concept. The concern with it being a list of trivia can be dealt with through editing using those sources, and is not a reason for deletion. I thought that improving earlier versions of an article was the way the wiki worked. --Bláthnaid20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the bullet points have been turned into complete sentences. That doesn't make the actual topics of the sentences any more closely associated. Otto471115:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711, the entire article was rewritten. The very first paragraph establishes the topics' association: World War III is a common theme in popular culture. Since the 1940s, countless books, films, and television programmes have used the theme of nuclear weapons and a third global war.[1] The presence of the Soviet Union as an international rival armed with nuclear weapons created a persistent fear in the United States. There was a pervasive dread of a nuclear World War III, and popular culture reveals the fears of the public at the time.[2] This theme in the arts was also a way of exploring a range of issues far beyond nuclear war.[3] The historian Spencer R. Weart called nuclear weapons a "symbol for the worst of modernity."[1]. There are a few sentences establishing context at the start of each sub-section, before relevant examples are given. Could you point me towards an "X in popular culture" article that you think is suitable for Wikipedia? --Bláthnaid17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cant label these fictional conflicts as "World War III". They're fictional conflicts that are set in the future, but they're not WW3 Corpx17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Exactly. As has been pointed out from the jump, every fictional war that takes place after 1945 is not by definition "World War III." "Fear of nuclear weapons" doesn't automatically translate into "fear of World War III." A nuclear war is not automatically World War III; indeed, the only nuclear war we've had was not World War III. Otto471117:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see where you are coming from now. I still disagree, though :p. For example at the start of the 1980s section it says ...In the early 1980s there was a feeling of alarm in Europe and North America that a nuclear World War III was imminent.[8]...This worry manifested itself in the popular culture of the time, with images of nuclear war in books, film, music, and television.[6] That point alone is enough for the article to be kept and built on. How about the 1950s section? The book The Horror Film: An Introduction makes the connection between WWIII fears and the popularity of science-fiction films, I didn't. In the 1960s section, the quote about fears of a nuclear attack kicking off WWIII being expressed in film is attributed to Susan Sontag. The fear was mostly of a nuclear World War III, but there were other interpretations e.g. Tom Clancy. There are enough reliable sources for the article to be kept. Of course, the article still needs a lot of work, and I appreciate your advice. --Bláthnaid19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite every item on that list as being referred to as WW3 by a reliable source? Otherwise they should be removed and it would leave the article quite empty Corpx00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is clearly much improved, the remaining concerns can be dealt with editorially, and I urge those who have been impressed by the initial pile-on delete !votes to take another look now. DGG (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care if it's in paragraph form, just a messy page. A nn subject, just about times a fictional war has (or may have been) mentioned in a tv show or such. Clearly not needed here, like the other trivia forks. Biggspowd05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On what basis do you say it is nn? Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". The references include scholarly works on the subject. Dbromage [Talk]
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.