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 no consensus. The Community is split between those who consider this to be a list that lacks coherence and consists of trivia and those who point to strong cultural influences. The article is kept by default. There is a significant lack of sourcing but this should be dealt with by editorial action; for example by adding ((fact)) tags to the unsourced items that can be removed if they remain unsourced after a reasonable period of time. TerriersFan 23:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange[edit]

The article was deleted at its previous AfD. DRV overturned this result because of problems with the closing, including failure adequately to consider the possibility of a merge. Still, deletion is on the table, given WP:NOT and WP:V concerns (as with many "in popular culture" articles), pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for relisting this. I'm planning on doing some cleanup/revision, so I hope others will please hold off for a few days before voicing concerns that may be remedied, or just check back once or twice before the AfD closes. — xDanielx^Talk 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Well, I finished the first wave of cleanup. The article still could use sources for specific references, but I don't really want to dig those up while the AfD is in progress seeing as there's a good chance the work will be wasted. — xDanielx^Talk 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a good example of the laundry-list of loosely related topics that have given "In popular culture" articles a bad name. An indiscriminate collection of any and every trivial reference, including some that are ridiculous (It is possible to buy a keychain charm depicting Stewie Griffin dressed as a Droog.), and a lot of original research with the usual OR phrases like Is similar to, Is reminiscent of, etc. There appeared to have been a clear consensus for deletion in the previous AFD, I don't see a single "keep" argument based on anything other than "it was kept before" or "the film is notable", neither of which are arguments for keeping this list. Unfortunately, Eyrian's closing of that AFD has meant this crap-magnet list has to be debated again. Masaruemoto 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still a directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of...stuff...that makes some trivial reference to the novel or film, or that in the unreferenced opinion of some random editor might possibly bear some similarity to something from the novel or film, tells us nothing about the novel or film, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between them (for there is none) and nothing about the world. Anything that's been around for a while is going to accumulate a selection of references to it in other media. That doesn't mean that a laundry list trivia dump of "ooh, Clockwork Orange thingy!" references makes for an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Still has the same problems. The article has been constructed completely from primary sources, using a variety of (trivial) references to attempt to demonstrate cultural impact. This constitutes synthesis, which is completely unacceptable. --Eyrian 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now per xDanielx. Let's give him a chance to work on the article before discussing its merits a third time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I split this off from the book and film articles in order to improve those (a problem was that lots of references to the film ended up in the book and vice versa, as people didn't quite know what was referenced). I don't care what happens to this as long as it is not merged back in. Kusma (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not actual, useful knowledge. Most references are only mentions, they have no real significance. An essay that defines the appearance of stylistic devices in film or literature which borrow from or simply ape portions of A Clockwork would indeed be interesting and encyclopedic, but it couldn't be a mere list or an arrangement of original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the sourced info and then redirect. Simple really. Lugnuts 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - XDanielk, I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I see no hope for this article ever evolving into anything other than a synthesis of trivia that has no value. It is time to let it go. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The cultural influence of A Clockwork Orange is simply enormous, as evidenced by the cultural references. This article illustrates the scope of the cultural impact in a way that can't easily be done with only a brief summary embedded in the main article. I'm rather disappointed to see it being generalized as "listcruft" and what not. I pruned what I took to be the bottom ~60% or so of listed items in terms of notability and relevance, and there are still plenty remaining. By continuing with more extensive revision I'm sure we can isolate a medium-sized collection of references that are considerably notable and pertinent. We cam also develop a stronger lead and add better references about the general influence of A Clockwork Orange. Adding sources for specific references is just a technicality which can be easily completed when we get around to it. Let's fix this article, instead of deleting harmless information. — xDanielx^Talk 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again - This is a bunch of loosely associated topics knit up into a list Corpx 00:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the 2nd afd was more than convincing to me, and the fact that all the other Kubrick-related "in popular culture" articles were deleted proves that there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/"in popular culture" pages. Biggspowd 05:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A small handful of trivia/culture articles were deleted, therefore all popular culture studies should be banned from Wikipedia? That sounds very much like WP:WAX. — xDanielx^Talk 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Straw man. Nobody is trying to delete popular culture studies articles. People are deleting lists of trivial references that are bundled together to make a synthetic whole. Tragically, that's what almost every popular culture article is like. --Eyrian 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    - What about "there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/'in popular culture' pages"? — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're taking that out of context. These are "trivia/popular culture pages". That is, they are trivia masquerading as a popular culture article. --Eyrian 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
        There's not much ambiguity in "there is no place in WP for this or any other trivia/'in popular culture' pages". I don't see what contextual condition might allow you to interpret that as anything other than a very generic complaint with no consideration of this article in particular. — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        These articles are anything but particular. There are many (though much fewer, now) articles like this: rambling lists of trivial or one-off references. There is certainly a broad class of trivia/IPC articles that just need to go. That doesn't mean that all popular culture studies articles need to. --Eyrian 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

could you list the (few) ones that you think are good, so w can have some idea or your standards?DGG (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Well referenced and inciteful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "well referenced" intrigues me. I see one reference in the entire article. Otto4711 15:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The requirement is verifiable. There are 226 refs to "popular culture" "clockwork Orange" in Google Scholar [1] . Most accessibly, it's discussed in several chapters of the Cambridge Film Handbook on "Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange" ed. by Stuart MacDougal. I added it as a general ref. Most individual items quoted will probably be referenced in the reviews. The reasons why popular culture is encyclopedic has been given many times before. the ones who don't like the topic, should leave it alone. I leave alone the stuff on the Simpsons, and the listing of numbered highways, and all sorts of things. DGG (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a work happens to contain both the phrase "Clockwork Orange" and "popular culture" doesn't mean that the reference has anything to do with the subject of A Clockwork Orange in popular culture. For example, the article Dangerous games: Racism as practised symbolically in Italian popular culture does not appear to have anything to do with the novel or film. Relying on Google hits is a slender reed indeed, unless you're prepared to argue the cultural relationship between Hitler and Pop-tarts. Otto4711 13:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not read the article you mention. The ref. is on p.215. (The material there has not yet been added to this article--I think that GS list would probably yield about 100 additional good referenced items, in addition to sourcing the ones already included). Superficial judging by titles when one doesn't know the material is the curse of trying to get respectable sourcing into WP. DGG (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Clockwork Orange is mentioned on one page of a document that is at least 215 pages long. Sorry, but that doesn't appear to qualify as a substantial discussion of the topic of CW in PC. Otto4711 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The influence of the film has been such that a list of notable references of this type will be easily verifiable. Ideally it would become a part of the article on the film itself, but that would make the article too lengthy. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to remind people that 1) 3 other similar pages on Kubrick films have been deleted in AFD, 2) This page was already deleted, 3) Just because something is popular or well-known does not mean every subject should have various spinoff pages. Biggspowd 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument though. Lugnuts 11:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using that argument, I was just saying that 3 similar pages about Kubrick films have been deleted, and this should be as well, turning a list into an OR essay does not mean an article is any better or should be kept, period. Biggspowd 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 4 RS to the article. The opening paragraph is completely sourced and asserts that both the book and the movie have had a huge influence on popular culture, and pop culture references them frequently. This makes the article pass WP:V, because the topic as a whole is notable and verifiable. Now to the WP:NOT#TRIVA and #DIR issues. I've added some context to the "films" section to explain why the film was influential. Naming films that reference A Clockwork Orange within this context allows the article to pass WP:NOT because the reason these articles are listed has been explained at the start of the section. I could only spare half an hour to find sources, but I hope I have shown that RS are indeed available that make the connection between a part of pop culture and A Clockwork Orange. A couple of points already have two sources, eg Reservoir Dogs. A very few primary references are OK for the article, eg the band Moloko is of course a cultural reference to A Clockwork Orange. Unreferenced parts should indeed go, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. A foundation is needed to build the type of article that User:Anetode would like Wikipedia to have. --Bláthnaid 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 11 sources now. --Bláthnaid 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because something happens does not mean it is notable for a page or entry here. Biggspowd 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one made that claim. Though per WP:DGFA and other guidelines, substantial changes should be considered as possible reasons to ignore or give less weight to certain votes. Either way I think there is no consensus, unless a large wave of voters causes a substantial change. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article looks pretty good now, topic is important, "I don't like cultural references lists" is not good reason for deletion. Squidfryerchef 03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "I don't like cultural references lists" is not a good reason for deletion. Fortunately, no one appears to be offering it as a reason. What we are offering as a reason is the lack of any meaningful association between the trivial items on this list, and your comment fails to address those points. "Article looks pretty good now" is absolutely not a reason for keeping and the existence of these scattered references does not establish that the topic is important. Otto4711 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, topic is coherent. Everyking 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge and Comment. It is my understanding, especially with the recent reference additions, that the topic of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange is indeed notable, but that the list accompanying this topic is not. For each entry, there should be at least one reliable source stating that it is in fact a reference, but at the moment this list consists mostly of what is believed to be a reference (i.e. Original Research). Therefore, merge the (sourced) intro and the few sourced entries to either the book or film article, leave an invisible comment there that only material with a non-primary reliable source is allowed, and then delete this list as WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you simply cannot state that it is in anyway remotely Encyclopaedic, referecnes in culture no... maybe if it was a well sourced detailed examination of its impact on culture then yes.

"Metalcore band Every Time I Die's song "Pornogratherapy" is a song written with many references to the A Clockwork Orange movie." says who?

"The debut album of the American thrash metal band Death Angel is entitled "The Ultra-Violence"." So what?

"There was a surf rock band in the 1960s called The Clockwork Oranges." And?

"The film inspired the name for the Italian football team Juventus FC's ultra group who are called The Drughi (The Droogs in Italian language)." Who's word are we taking for that?

"At 2:00 in the viral video Blake The Prep (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OjXCYyrtnBM) from Drop Culture Productions, Blake mentions an "intellectual" coming up to him and asking if he has seen A Clockwork Orange, and that it is a very important film. To which Blake replys "Have you ever seen Donnie Darko, yeah, I bet you haven't." " massively important piece of info there...

This is my point.. its an article that generates lists of total crap if you dont mind me saying, it encourages people to add information which becomes less and less to the point but it has no value. It is a worthless article. But then thats my opinion and my vote. --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:20, 21 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.