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 merge into Lord of the Flies. Natalie 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Flies in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yet another cruft filled article that isn't very useful. Trim the section in the main article, instead of just branching off to these crufty "pop culture/cultural references" articles. RobJ1981 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S: Society topics. ◄Zahakiel► 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete paging Dr. Cruft, please pick up the white courtesy phone. /Blaxthos 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate information, plus much original research - "People have found many similarities", "has been speculated that", "is similar to", "It is claimed that". Croxley 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per indiscriminate OR concerns. Otto4711 11:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Lord of the Flies. Do not fear to convert the list into paragraphs analysing these several allusions on the bogus grounds that the analysis needed to turn the lists into running discourse is "unreferenced" or "original research". Only allusions in notable works should be included, and in a notable work, a Wikilink is all the reference you need; and the fear that the brief synopses needed to explain allusions are "original research" is just silly. The *Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, originally written to entertain: it already is popular culture, even if it is taught. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm starting to feel like a broken record saying how these things violate WP:NOT and are devoid of encyclopedic content, et. Arkyan 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Does not fail WP:NOT#IINFO, but does appear to be OR and unreferenced This does not appear to violate WP:NOT#IINFO. That section of WP:NOT is very specific about what it prohibits, and lists of popular culture references are not part of that section. (See previous discussions on the incorrect application of WP:NOT#IINFO on the archived talk page.) However, it does appear to be largely unreferenced original research. Therefore the article should probably be trimmed down to clear referenced entries and, space permitting, merged back into the Lord of the Flies main article. Dugwiki 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, P.S., "cruft" is never a reason for deletion. Dugwiki 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It could be useful. StaticElectric 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:ATT, completely unsourced: possibly WP:OR, and, yes per WP:NOT#IINFO. Just a glorified plot summary, which NOT prohibits. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not summarizing a plot. In fact, it's specifically talking about real world references to the plot, which is explicitly what WP:NOT#IINFO says is supposed to happen. Dugwiki 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Lord of the Flies. The book is already popular culture. It is very appropiate to discuss the influence of the book on other elements of poplular culture. In this case, why would you want to split them? -- Michael Johnson 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lack of deletion rationale. Too long for lord of the flies article. SakotGrimshine 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This is not indiscriminate information per WP:NOT#IINFO as Dugwiki has noted above. Nor would I say that it is indiscriminate per the common definition of the term; there is a clear discriminating criterion, namely, reference to LOTF. Also, this is not unsourced: it is sourced by primary sources. For instance, the reference to LOTF in Hook (film) is sourced by the film itself. However, despite the fact that a nomination based merely in the vague accusation of "cruft" is just begging for a "Strong keep", this article violates WP:TRIV and should not remain as a stand-alone article. Most of the entries in the article are merely passing mentions, but some are more significant. Per Smerdis of Tlön, I will trim the article so that an admin may easily merge it if that is the consensus. -- Black Falcon 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten. I have rewritten the article: deleting most of the content, converting the remainder into prose form, and adding some references (see diff). I have made statements that tie the various elements together, but also deliberately limited their scope to keep them factual: I can't say that LOTF has greatly impacted future literary works, but I can say that it "has influenced or inspired multiple cultural works". Any additional cleanup would be appreciated, as I'm rather tired now and may have missed something (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, content organisation, etc.). I feel this is short and selective enough (and also sourced) to be merged back into Lord of the Flies. -- Black Falcon 06:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the rewrite is good enough to merge back in to the parent article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:10, 27 March 2007 (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.