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 delete per clear community consensus. Krimpet 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Trivia list that does little but mention a bunch of times the idea has been featured in jokes. --Eyrian 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pop culture references list with little context and few sources --Miskwito 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The user who contested the prod in May recanted and this should have been removed then. The first post-1928 instance of its use could be accomodated on the main article page.Canuckle 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article infinite monkey theorem is too large to include this spinoff. Interestingly, there aren't many other ways to illustrate the concept besides these references. Obviously, there are no real-life examples (other than, perhaps, Wikipedia itself) of a lot of monkeys pounding away on keyboards until something intelligent can be produced. :) Mandsford 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The main article doesn't need a long section at all. As I've stated many times: condense the section instead of just splitting it into a massive list that grows into a cluttered mess with no signs of clean up. RobJ1981 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening for further process-wonking.--Calton | Talk 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another random list of factoids. A simple paragraph in infinite monkey theorem should suffice. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters would not make this an encyclopedic article. --B 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Including this in the main article interrupts the discussion of that topic. This article enables its reader to understand allusions in literature, and to include such allusions in an informed way in this article's reader's own writing. Michael Hardy 05:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article got deleted when it was beyond unreasonable to consider this discussion concluded. I restored it. I will put notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Probability and at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics informing those communities of the existence of this article and of this nomination. One very disturbing thing about this is the lack of attempts to notify people who are well-informed in this subject matter. Observe User:B's sarcastic comment above. The term "infinite typewriters" is simply not used to mean "infinitely many typewriters" except by the uninformed. It is an incorrect usage. "Infinite typewriters" would mean some typewriters---maybe two or three of them---EACH ONE OF WHICH, by itself, is infinite. That point is explained at infinite monkey theorem. I find it really sickening the way the AfD debates are dominated by people who do nothing but hang around AfD pages voting to delete articles that they don't understand because of their lack of familiarity with the subject matter or because they're unwilling to understand them. Michael Hardy 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an AFD about the theorem itself, which is obviously notable. It's an AFD about pop culture references. Just because something is encyclopedic doesn't mean we need a "list of times xxx has been mentioned on the Simpsons" article. --B 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone said "few sources". That is nonsense. The sources are obviously listed here. Michael Hardy 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing, eh? You seem quite desperate to keep this article. —Kurykh 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was not "desperate"; it was routine and it was improper for those who nominated this for deletion not to put that notice there in the first place. When articles in that field are nominated for deletion, people always put a notice there. Except in this case. It is not "canvassing" to ask people to express there opinions without urging them to vote for deletion or against deletion. Michael Hardy 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Always"? "Routine"? A courtesy, yes, but not necessarily "always" or "routine." Your framing of this case as a vast deletionist conspiracy is ludicrous. —Kurykh 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of deleting, just remove each item that is not sourced. Then you'll have a short article instead of a long article, and you can merge it back into the main. Dicklyon 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge anything worth keeping to infinite monkey theorem per Calton. --John 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What part of WP:WHEEL don't you understand? --B 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge to infinite monkey theorem - these trivia/pop culture sections weigh down perfectly good articles with bilge. 76.80.112.235 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations on pointing us in the right direction, that is, to delete this "bilge". —Kurykh 06:23, 6 August 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.