Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghouls in popular culture

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 and cleanup. – bradv🍁 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouls in popular culture edit

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

Ghouls 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)

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of media appearances of the topic. It does not adhere to the standards of MOS:POPCULT, summary style discussion on the topic's importance in popular culture using examples from reliable sources. I do not think it is possible to improve the topic to the standards of a stand alone article. While Ghoul would have no issue handling the content in the article, I think merging is a poor idea because the current information is mostly unsourced and original research. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Ghoul#Should we just create Ghouls in popular culture? tells us that this was the usual sweeping of unwanted content under the rug. Yet again. (User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing)

    The sad thing here in this particular case is that this was not bad content. Tolkien can be sourced to ISBN 9781476614861 page 103 and a bunch more (it being Tolkien). Lovecraft's ghoul on the television (no less!) can be sourced to the "Lovecraft on television" chapter of ISBN 9781476604008. The entry for "ghoul" in ISBN 9781317044260 has Lord Byron, William Beckford's Vathek, Lovecraft, The Ghoul, and more. ISBN 9780195146561, an encyclopaedia of children's literature, gives an indication of having more in its entry for "ghoul". The entry for "ghoul" in ISBN 9781440803895 has Harry Potter, Larry Niven's Ringworld, Lovecraft, two Edgar Allen Poe poems, and others.

    Much of this is in the edit history of the original article at Special:Permalink/329641402#Fictional representations. This really shouldn't have been swept under the rug in the first place. It should have been fixed, and ghoul should have discussed the imported idea, as other encyclopaedias in fact do.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. AFD is not cleanup and the issue presented is an editorial one. Note that no argument based on WP:GNG or WP:NLIST was presented as part of the nomination rationale. Not complying with MOS guidelines is not a ground for deletion and in no way are the issues presented insurmountable to justify deletion. Per WP:ATD, if the nominator is concerned about the article's content quality but could not be bothered to research from reliable sources and write content for it, I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn or closed as keep, that the article be tagged for cleanup, and leave it for other editors who may be interested but are unaware that there is a content quality issue. Haleth (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic may be notable, but the current article has next to no rescuable content, and is an unreferenced WP:OR listcruft, so WP:TNT should be invoked. Ping me if someones (Uncle G?) decides to rewrite this, but either way 95%+ of the existing content - if not all of it, honestly - needs to go (fails OR, V, and likely GNG). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR easily, TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 04:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I agree with Haleth's arguments. And there are primary sources mentioned in the text for almost everything, so WP:OR is rather unlikely to apply. And Uncle G has already found secondary sources for it. I have also added a secondary source for the D&D part. So that argument carries little weight. As for the current content having little value, the same applies: The content is not bad, it is only missing (explicit) referencing! And sources have been shown to exist. So the current content can be improved, and therefore WP:TNT by definition does not apply. Then for the topic being indiscriminate: The topic does not strike me as overly broad, and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content describes how do decide what to include and what not, which is also supported by MOS:POPCULT: Providing secondary (and tertiary) sources. And a WP:BEFORE search provides many secondary sources where this topic appears.
That all said, I am undecided whether the topic is better presented as a separate article or as a section within the Ghoul article. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and I just wanted to make explicit: The sources listed by Uncle G clearly show that the topic itself fulfills Wikipedia's notability standards. The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters alone has a five-page-entry dealing directly with the subject. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT principle. Could be a potential article but nothing in its current form seems salvageable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: But there are important examples of the ghoul in popular culture in the current form. So why should there be nothing salvagable? I have tried to improve the Harry Potter bullet point in this regard (also showing that this was not original research), what do you think? Daranios (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was salvageable before you added that sentence. Still, a single sentence being salvageable does not mean the article should be kept. If the article gets wholesale rewritten demonstrating why each depiction of a ghoul was actually important, I would probably change my !vote. Saying TNT implies that I do think there could be a version of the article worthy of keeping. However, you would also have to prove that the information couldn't just be merged into Ghoul, which it absolutely could at the moment.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Sure there was something salvagable before I ever touched that section: The sentences that I have kept and sourced, and which where the starting point for me. The same procedure could be applied to any point. (I am not saying that everything should be kept, but that some of it has worth.) It seems you expect a perfect article before you are willing to keep it (or even merge it, given your deletion vote), and I don't think that's how Wikipedia works or should would. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid basis for action. This is a wiki and so our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states clearly that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research pop culture trivia, delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Uncle G explains the matter well and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G's argument. This article can be cleaned up by providing sources. DestinFox talk 16:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destin Fox and Andrew Davidson: Can you elaborate on how Uncle G's argument says the article can be cleaned up and kept? The core problem of this article is that there isn't enough non-trivial coverage of 'Ghouls in popular culture', and this article was created to shove the unwanted content that was originally on the main article elsewhere. Per Uncle G's statement of "It should have been fixed, and ghoul should have discussed the imported idea, as other encyclopaedias in fact do", some of the content of this article could be merged back into ghoul, but only non-trivial entries with proper citations, meaning that 99% of the article would be removed, which isn't enough to justify a content fork. Waxworker (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Waxworker: If I may jump in here: First, I seems to me that Uncle G objects to this "shove the unwanted content", also stating that "in this particular case is that this was not bad content". Then the sources provided by Uncle G show us that there is enough non-trivial coverage of 'Ghouls in popular culture': Encyclopedia of the Zombie: The Walking Dead in Popular Culture and Myth (ISBN 9781440803895) has a two-page entry (+ more elsewhere in the book), The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (ISBN 9781317044260), as I said, has five pages. There WP:GNG is already fulfilled. Then you say that "99% of the article would be removed". I've improved the Harry Potter entry (and to a degree the D&D entry) using existing material. So there's already more than 1 % to keep. Uncle G specifically mentions three more entries which appear in secondary sources and therefore would likely not be removed (out of, I am counting, 22) - so I think 99% is very much distorted. (And Uncle G mentions already three more appearances in secondary sources appropriate for inclusion.) So I can only agree with DestinFox that the article can be cleaned up by sourcing (and using the found sources to expand the introduction). Daranios (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and of course there's already the introduction based on an academic secondary source, that deals with the origin of and transformation into the depiction of the ghoul in popular culture, another piece that would be kept when improving this into a good article. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this still looks like a candidate for WP:TNT, but at least User:205dvanvoorhees removed a lot of the worst content last year. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: But which of the reasons given in WP:TNT would apply here? Daranios (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: What about the example of Harry Potter. The fact that there were sources for the preserved part tells me that that was not synthesis by Wikipedia editors. The fact that there's a tertiary source discussing it (the ideal case according to MOS:POPCULT) tells me that this is a point not solely interesting to fans. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune then keep. Daranios convinced me this is salvageable, but let's face it, 99% of the content went already or still needs pruning. Keep the lead, and the reliably referenced paragraphs about Harry Potter and DnD. Everthing else needs to go. So, 1% kept, 99% deleted, this is, hmm, still a form of a keep I guess but... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: If most of it is pruned, then it does not need to be a spinout article. The info can be added to Ghoul instead as I mentioned above. It is pointless to have a spinout with so little content, so at the very least a redirect would be in order rather than a keep.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: What Zxcvbnm has in mind is a merge and redirect, not redirect only, right? As stated above, I am open to either keep or merge at that point. The best thing to do would of course be check each point and see if there are actually secondary source or not. That's a lot of work however (and AfD is not clean-up). So one way to go about it would be to comment out the things where noone has done the checking yet. But to show that it's not so little, let's have a look at The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Cinematic and Literary Monsters only (which Uncle G has already done in part). There appear from the existing points (aside from Harry Potter): One Thousand and One Nights, Vathek, Edgar Allen Poe, Lovecraft, The Ghoul starring Boris Karloff and The Monster Club (and a number of other examples not yet in the article). So these should be kept also right away, because we already know that there is a tertiary source supporting them. So again, we are very far away from only 1 % of current content being worthwhile. Daranios (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've recently written an article about the Fallout series' iteration of ghouls, and I note that it is not mentioned at all on the current version of this article. Some of the stuff I've cited which talks about Fallout's use of the ghoul pop culture archetype can form a paragraph. Haleth (talk) 05:12, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghouls_in_popular_culture&oldid=1028213301"