Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Popular culture. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Popular culture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Popular culture. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list is for "... in popular culture" or "cultural depictions of ..."-type articles.

Popular culture

Public image of Eminem

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

I don't see evidence in the sourcing (or anywhere that I look) that "public image of Eminem" is an independently notable topic from Eminem ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are separate public image articles for other notable musicians. It appears this article was created to reduce the excessive length of the main Eminem article. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Eminem's article is currently having a tag for being too long. I can confirm that Public image of Eminem was created specifically to recude the length of the main article. Now I'm not an expert in Eminem, so anyone can feel free to add more necessary information but it's obvious that we can't keep all of that information in Eminem's article. Hubert555 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this split is desirable per WP:LENGTH of the main article. When an article is too large, consider breaking it into smaller articles, spinning part of it out into a new article. Full disclosure: I was the editor who added the too long tag to the main article. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Popular culture. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional book

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

Following the recent and still ogoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False document (2nd nomination) I was motivated to try to rescue that article (for result, see found manuscript, which seems to be the term used in literary studies - not sure if pseudobiblia wouldn't be more popular, however). But I also noticed we have the usual mess at fictional book. Surprisingly, I am not seeing that term used in RS in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV, although common-sense wise it would be a better place for this topic than the more esoteric terms I mentioned earlier. However, before any move, we should also discuss what to do with the mess at the nominated article: first, we have pure WP:OR intro, then de-facto list of fictional books, which has some references, not many. I couldn't find a list to support keeping this as a list (for WP:NLIST), but I expect someone might be able to dig something. The question is, should be just move the content here to a list (after presumably shortening the lead to remove OR) or just nuke it? And should fictional book be a disambig, or a redirect to the list, or to my new article, or should my new article be moved...? I'll ping editors who commented in the relevant AfD linked above: User:Blackballnz, User:TompaDompa, User:Shooterwalker, User:Pokelego999. PS. Interwiki (de/it) should probably be moved to my new article. It article lists some potentially interesting sources (but in Italian/offline...?), de is less useful, sadly. Neither is a list, they are prose (hence, a better fit to my rewrite). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) PS. I did not notice yesterday, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books (2nd nomination) existed - and was deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring the introduction; but that list seems to be classic cargo-cult encyclopaedia article writing. It's a fairly haphazard mixture of macguffins, story within a story (a.k.a. embedding or hypodiegetic narrative according to the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Narrative Theory, if anyone wants to fix the missing redirects and disambiguation entries and alternative names), discovered manuscripts, plain old just-something-fictional-like-everything-else-in-the-story items, and a couple of others. The RENT also tells us that storyworld doesn't mean what our article says, in narrative theory; and has an entry for framed narrative that uses the word "diegetic" a lot, ☺ in addition to saying that a found manuscript that the fictional author has to make public is one type of framed narrative. So this is one argument for not renaming the new, and not preserving the list. Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See also mise en abyme, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly more cohesive than false document. Could it be pruned back to a literal interpretation of only fictional books found within other books? (Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin could be added). Should it be be merged with found manuscript, as they are both covering essentially the same topic? Blackballnz (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, there is also Story in story#Nested books as a not identical but closely related subject to consider. And there is Category:Fictional books, which has enough entries to justify a list from a WP:CLN/WP:LISTPURP-NAV point of view. I am also thinking along the same lines as Blackballnz.

What really surprised me language-wise is that sources often seem to use "fictional book" in the same meaning as "book of fiction. Which makes looking for sources hard but also may indicate that the idea is relevant but this should not be the article title. Still, what looks like a very promising source is Made-up Stories: What can fictional books tell us about real ones?, but I cannot access it. What I can access is Books Within Books in Fantasy and Science Fiction: “You are the Dreamer and the Dream”, which deals with our topic and our Wikipedia article, whatever that means for usability. Additionally, the sources used for that paper are likely relevant. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Story in story, which is the real home for this topic. This article veers into WP:OR when the more common term is used in the same sense as fiction book (a redirect to fiction). If there is more than one potential target, I suggest a WP:DISAMBIG, but perhaps at a less confusing title (e.g.: book within a book). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve through normal editing, possibly renaming. There are the above source, as well others based on the synonymous term "imaginary book", like this and The Guardian article it refers to, Imaginary Books and Phantom Libraries, Early Modern Catalogues of Imaginary Books; a Scholarly Anthology, looking at a subtopic, i.e. 16th to 18th century, this paper covering the "screen" sub-topic, “I have chosen to write notes on imaginary books”, and more. So this topic is certainly notable. If we want to make this a list, the WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns of that deletion discussion can easily be solved by introducing a selection critereon. As usual, I'd suggest to include those notable by Wikipedia standards, i.e. useful for navigation parallel Category:Fictional books and those talked about by secondary sources, a very few of them present in the current version of this article, showing that what we have now is not a case of WP:TNT. All the related topics and potential merge destinations, Story in story, found manuscript, framed narrative seem to be sub-topics of this one, but do not cover all aspects. Notably, what I would consider among the most prominent examples, Lovecraft's Necronomicon, fits none of them, as it is not a story which appears within Lovecraft's fiction, but an item which does have a function there. This type should be covered somewhere, while the article can refer to the articles of the other subtypes. Daranios (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see that Found manuscript does seem to include this type in scope, as it has the Necronomicon, even though that does not fit the article title. A problem which would not appear for Pseudobiblia or Imaginary book, I assume. @Piotrus: I assume The Tales of Beedle the Bard or the Encyclopedia Galactica, which are one step further removed from the actual world through their universe, would fit in there, too? If that's the case I personally still tend to keep this and reorient it as a list as described, but a merge to Found manuscript would fine scopewise, too. Daranios (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios I am afraid it may be few days before I can research this more. I am all for rescuing this, but I could not find good sources. I'll review the ones you found when time permits (a cursory glance suggests they look promising). I'll note that common sense wise, found manuscript should be a subtopic of this, but the term is sometimes used to refer to fictional books too, which add a layer of confusion (see sources cited). Pseudobiblia seems to be a rare synonym, not often used in English. Sources may exist in other languages (ex. the Italian term seems reasonably popular and it wiki article cites some sources that may be worth pursuing). And yes, there are obviously notable fictional books (and found manuscripts), although the usual issue of "NOTLAUNDRYLIST" (WP:NOTTVTROPES) is an issue. If someone finds time to use the sources we have to write something and WP:HEY this, it would be great. Preferably not with a merge to found manuscript, as I think that is a separate topic (but again, sometimes this term is used in a confusing synonymous way...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail in popular culture

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

Most of this article is an assortment of pop culture references and random listings, which violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There is some decent legacy at the top of the article, but the parent article (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) is at a decently fine page size (57,000 or so bytes), making a WP:SIZESPLIT unnecessary. While this film had a large legacy, the coverage on it does not appear to be so vast that a split from the parent article is needed and is better covered at the parent, per WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the filmmaking section to the main article and run away from the rest, which are all just trivial examples of "borrowing" things from the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Clarityfiend that nothing outside the "Filmmaking" section is worth retaining, and I agree with Pokelego999 that it would be better to cover the relevant information at the parent article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That being said, what exactly would we merge? The information in the "Financial legacy" subsection is already at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Development, and the subsequent "Impact on television and filmmaking" subsection is pretty poor. I could maybe see using the cited "How Monty Python and the Holy Grail Influenced Film by Satirizing It" article from The Atlantic and possibly the cited "45 Years Ago: Monty Python and the Holy Grail Changes Comedy Forever" article from Ultimate Classic Rock (is that outlet WP:Reliable for this kind of content?), but in that case I wouldn't use the current content but rather start over from scratch in summarizing those sources. The rest of that subsection is either sourced to this article from Screen Rant (not a source we should be using here, see WP:RSP/VALNET), this article from The Daily Telegraph about the show Disenchantment that briefly mentions Monty Python and the Holy Grail as an inspiration, or completely unsourced. Even the best sources currently cited here are way below the quality I would expect could be found for this topic, so surely we should locate better sources and use those instead. As far as I can tell there is no need to keep the edit history for attribution (WP:CWW), and I don't think the title is worth keeping as a redirect. So I don't really see anything to WP:PRESERVE here and no other strong case for any particular WP:Alternative to deletion. Maybe I'm missing something, but at the moment I don't see why we would merge or redirect instead of simply deleting this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's extra financing info here that isn't in the main article: specific amounts contributed and the other two label backers. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, though I consider the exact figures to be minutiae and three record companies, including Charisma Records, the record label that had released Python's early comedy albums to be about as good as additionally naming Chrysalis Records and Island Records outright. These are details I wouldn't necessarily include if I were writing it from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference on whether this article is redirected, deleted, or merged. Whatever consensus shall be on that, I'll go with it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was popular culture. Is it not popular any more? ☺
I really do not understand why the article creator made this page in the first place. Nothing was split out of the main page. The article creator has not touched the main page at all. (The "see also" was wikignomed in by someone else.) It seems a total duplication of effort to no good end. Plus, a lot of the content here is things that "are similar to" MPATHG, a lot of which is highly suspect. Eric Idle was not the first person ever to say "Bring out your dead!", which a lot of this content seems to think to be the case. I agree with both Clarityfiend amd TompaDompa on what little there is to merge, and with the latter on perhaps working from scratch from better sources in any case.
Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could merge what's well-referenced in this article into a new article named Cultural impact of Monty Python (based on similar articles like Cultural impact of Star Wars and Cultural impact of Dragon Ball); a Google search reveals more sources talking about the impact of the Pythons as a whole ([1], [2], [3]). -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is Monty Python#Cultural influence and legacy. Probably better to work on that rather than creating a new article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]