Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)

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. While there are content issues, consensus is they can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness Monster in popular culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am running out of ways to say this differently. Is this topic potentially notable? Probably. Is there anything to rescue from this iteration of WP:NOTTVTROPES? Not likely. Another mostly unreferenced list of ORish collection of mentions of topic x in random works. Fails WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. At best, WP:TNT applies with no prejudice to anyone rewriting this at some future point from scratch. This one has no inclusion criteria and is just pure TVTropic listcruft. PS. This was kept 4 years ago but I am amazed at the arguments used back then: "Keep This is a fine dumping ground for when it becomes necessary to clear out the main Loch Ness Monster article." Seriously? Wikipedia should never be a dumping grounds for trivia. Groan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too little sourcing for such a large article. Wikipedia is not meant to be TV tropes. It is not meant to be an indicriminate listing of every time something happened or some character appeared in a work of fiction, no matter how minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one. Despite the expressed misgivings, I want to take up one argument form the previous deletion dicussion by Coolabahapple: This can be a useful list for navigation among notable entries, where the Loch Ness monster plays a main role in popular culture. Sure, the great majority here are bad examples, and most should be removed. But I think there are more than a handful of entries (especially in the film section) which would remain after proper trimming, and therefore warrant a list. The topic fullfills WP:LISTN, being discussed in secondary source like this article and The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters' entry "Loch Ness Monster". It can be improved by normal editing and is therefore not a case of WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I have removed, as far as I have seen, all the trivial entries where Nessie is just a mention or sidenote, leaving what either has blue links or sources (not sure if all of those are secondary). That's what I think should be WP:PRESERVEd (with room for more improvement of course). Daranios (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now attempted to formulate inclusion criteria, addressing another of the concerns raised in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but right now the article still is plagued by the same problems, it's just a bit shorter. Half of the entries still lack a reference, most of the others are primary sources or mentions in passing, and the proposed inclusion criteria are not based on any reliable sources - and we deleted plenty of such 'list sof notable mentions'. I think TNT still applies and this needs to be prose-ified and completely rewritten if it was to be kept, like what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I feel my arguments have mostly been ignored in this response, I try not to repeat myself too much: "Half of the entries still lack a reference" - please kindly check The Ashgate Encyclopedia yourself, as well as all the sources present in the linked articles. Can (most of) the unreferenced entries be referenced? Yes. This has not to be done now, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I have made a start, would you like to join in? Why should this fail WP:LISTN despite the two suggested sources? The inclusion criteria are not based on a secondary source, they are based on the WP:LISTN (as well as WP:IPCEXAMPLES, for that matter): "limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." This is already a discretionary, not a mandatory requirement. (Very few entries without a Wikipedia article remain, based on sources. If they should be removed or kept can be discussed and is another matter of simple clean-up.) As for "we deleted plenty of such 'list sof notable mentions'", Clarityfiend has already pointed out the difference. Changing the article to prose may be a good idea. It should in my view retain all blue-linked entries in order to still fullfill the navigation function. I have not seen so far seen that being in list form would be grounds for WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Ashgate is a good source, I stand by my view that there is nothing redeemable here. The fact that the topic is notable, and that a few movies mentioned in this reliable source are part of the list here, doesn't mean WP:TNT is not applicable. Per WP:IPC, the list format is not correct for such articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: WP:IPC says "Bulleted list format should be avoided when practical in favor of normal prose" (emphasis mine). So prose is encouraged but not mandatory in every case. More improtantly, that essay does not suggest WP:TNTing imperfect articles, but rather says "excessively long section can be trimmed by removing entries unlikely to have verifiable discussion of significance. Entries that make only passing reference to the subject can usually be removed." That's exactly what I've tried to do. "there is nothing redeemable here" also suggest that the purpose of navigation would never be applicable for topics which have "in popular culture" in their scope. That seems to be in opposition to the WP:LISTPURPS guideline. Daranios (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios As the policies indicate, prose is preferred. Or are you against the prose rewrite? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think its great that the current prose version of the article was created and covers the topic. But what it does no longer do, and which I am missing, is collecting all Wikipedia articles about Nessie-themed fiction in one place. The former (trimmed) list version did that. But as the problem of maintance - which I don't find a strong argument - and others have been put forward, I have tried to achieve the same by linking to the existing category, which has none of the "we need secondary sources" ballast in that regard. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Category solution seems good, considering this is what they are for, whereas such lists, IMHO, fail when tested vs INDISCRIMINATE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Movies, TV shows, etc. specifically about the LNM are plentiful and significant, unlike the usual drivel in "in popular culture" lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of relevance to this article, provides a good jumping point for research. AtFirstLight (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought that Loch Ness Monster was a pop culture creation to begin with, making this article extremely redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:TompaDompa has unilaterally deleted everything and started rewriting as they see fit. I have reverted that to the last ungutted version until a consensus has been reached. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Clarityfiend I am also concerned that we don't loose redeemable information, and I think this page has and should retain the navigation function of allowing interested readers to find the all relevant articles on Wikipedia. That said, prose is preferred when there isn't a good reason against it, and TompaDompa has a good record of improving articles deemed lacking in this regard, and saving them from deletion. So would it make sense to create the prose version in draftspace first, until it is clear that information is not lost? And only then transport it over here? Thanks for the effort on all sides, we all try to get the best solution here. Daranios (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution is to delete this now, with no prejudice to anyone working on this in a draftspace. Some content, such as the reference to the Ashagate encyclopedia, or categories, can be reused. But the trivial TVTrople-like content needs to go. TNT has been invoked and linked. As expected from TompaDompa, this is a major improvement, but if Clarityfiend insists on reverting, then I think we have no choice but to deny the readers the improved article for now, hard delete the old garbage in a week or however long it takes for this AfD to close, and only then we can add the TompaDompa's proper article to the project. The alternative is Clarityfiend accepting a WP:TROUT for their actions, not disrupting the rewrite, and then the readers can benefit from a proper article on this topic from today onward. PS. As before, I'd suggest withdrawing this deletion discussion, but I cannot do so if there is no consensus on which version is superior, as IMHO the old version has no value outside historic example of how not to write such artcles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Are you now the Afd judge, jury and executioner? You, it seems, have already made the decision, and the rest of us are wasting our time discussing things. Also, I made no judgment on what TompaDompa wrote; I just strenuously object to hiding what it is we're here to consider! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I am just someone who knows how to write quality content about popculture, since I've gotten several 'in fiction/popculture' etc. articles to GA status. Have you? If not, I suggest you try this first and then come back to offer your thoughts on what are best (or even acceptable) practices. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Oh, are we playing the "I'm better at X than you, so you shouldn't have a say in the matter" card now? When a list is being considered for deletion, does it really make sense to eliminate every example? Does that really further the discussion? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend In a proper rewrite of IPC articles, some examples are kept, although properly referenced and situated in analytical context, which is superior to an unreferenced list of trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: When making a drastic change in the midst of an ongoing discussion, IMO the proper procedure is, as Daranios has suggested and has been done in other Afds, make a draft. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep conditional on retaining the prose format I have introduced (see this version). Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. I have therefore replaced the list with a proper prose article based on sources about the topic, much as with WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture.
Calling this "unilaterally deleting everything" is rather silly, methinks, seeing as rewriting the article like this has repeatedly been demonstrated to turn the entire deletion discussion moot by improving the article such that the issues raised in the nomination no longer apply. Indeed, improving articles that have been nominated for deletion where possible is generally considered best practices.
As for the list that existed, I hardly think This page lists notable appearances in fiction, and notable creative works where the Loch Ness Monster is a major plot point or character. is a proper set of WP:LISTCRITERIA since those are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Moreover, if the idea was to have a navigational list, it should have looked way more like this and way less like this. The latter is a TV Tropes-style list, which is something that already exists at the proper location. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's so, than I guess noone will object to the creation of a List of creative works about the Loch Ness Monster or some such with the entries here organized in the same way as in List of Christmas-themed literature, with the purpose of navigation, right? That would be complementary to the prose version here which covers that "as a general topic". I am not sure if that would be used a lot, but I'd say it's not unlikely that users would want to know which fictional works feature Nessie. And it's little work to create, based on what has been done by previous users. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't say I see the point. You'd still have to come up with proper WP:LISTCRITERIA for inclusion, and as you say it's not terribly likely that anyone would use it. And of course there's the issue of having to maintain it so it doesn't turn into a TV Tropes-style list. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TompaDompa: List criteria analoguous to List of Christmas-themed literature, I guess. Daranios (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't consider that a good list to emulate in terms of WP:LISTCRITERIA, because the ones over there are notable literary works which are set at Christmas time, or contain Christmas amongst the central themes, which isn't really unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. There's also quite a difference between a theme/setting (Christmas) and a creature/character (Loch Ness Monster) appearing in a work. What it is a good examples of is how to format a navigational list of fictional/pop culture works. You could of course use something along the lines of "works mentioned by reliable secondary/tertiary sources on the topic of the Loch Ness Monster in popular culture" as the inclusion criteria, but in that case you could just use those sources to expand the prose article instead, so I don't think such a list would add much value. A problem with lists like this is that as soon as you add some text to an entry to explain why it is included, what you have is no longer a purely navigational list but a TV Tropes-style list all over again. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @TompaDompa: You wouldn't happen to have a better example to emulate, then? To me the distinction based on my phrasing seemed pretty clear - is it a main character? Is it a major plot point? - but that does not seem to be the case in general. As for secondary sources: All the blue linked entries should have secondary sources, or will disappear eventually if they don't. So there will be some cases beyond what's here now. (And at least one less, as it is only one among many plot points in the Dr. Lao.) Daranios (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No better example off the top of my head, no. Whether it is a major plot point is not objective, it requires a judgment call. We're not supposed to do that, we're supposed to leave it to the sources. The point of a navigational list is to help people find the article that they're looking for. As Cakelot1 pointed out below, it's not likely that such a list would be helpful here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Loch Ness Monster in popular culture is not the same as a List of Loch Ness Monster-themed literature. And unsurprisingly, I still consider the List of Christmas-themed literature quite a low quality listicle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as prose I agree with pretty much everything that TompaDompa said above. I'd like to add, that I find the idea that this could be navigational list a bit strange. I just don't see anybody trying to find, say Terror of the Zygons, going to an article called Loch Ness Monster in popular culture and slogging through short explanations of how a select few stories use Nessie in the story. It would seem much more useful as an overview of Loch Ness Monster in popular culture as a general topic based on the sources. Cakelot1 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable and can be preserved as list or prose. WP:TNT does not apply. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP does. Not sure why this was nominated again. Previous nomination resulted in WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the various good points above. WP:NOTTVTROPES is just a very recent essay, and should not be brandished in deletion discussions, if it even applies here. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a pretty relevant essay. Ping the author (User:TenPoundHammer) on their thoughts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 4 May 2022 (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.