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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangutans in popular culture

[edit]

A very crufty article that was most likely made so the Orangutan article wouldn't be bloated with cruft. This isn't how Wikipedia should be working. Trim trivia and pop culture sections: don't move them into crufty articles that aren't helpful. RobJ1981 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orangutan.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any entries where it can be verified through the use of reliable sources that the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the lifeform in question back into the main article. Merge any entries where multiple reliable fact-checked sources indicate that the appearance is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question into the main article. Delete anything at this namespace; I believe the rest of the references can get by without a reciprocal wikilink. -- saberwyn 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Might Qualify: Dunston Checks In (film whose plot is centred around an orangutan), Discworld's Librarian (major character over multiple novels in a popular fictional series. Maybe... maybe. -- saberwyn 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both the orangutan article and this are not so large that these can't be merged. Wikipedia allows otherwise unsourced plot summaries, I believe, so if the Edgar Allan Poe story can be named, I think that's good enough, and same for the Planet of the Apes and other books and films. I don't know what saberwyn means by "is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question". Noroton 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone could provide a source saying that appearance of orangutan x in fictional work y was responsible for... say... a significant upswing in donations to conservation efforts concerning orangutans (or some similar "news-making" occurance, then it should be entered in the Orangutan article. A vague bell rings of a section of proceeds from the sales of one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels going towards an orangutan conservation fund, which to me would go towards qualifying The Librarian (Discworld) for a small paragraph in the main article, but I may be dreaming. -- saberwyn 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the list isn't to provide information on real orangutans, it's to follow how orangutans are used in cultural artifacts of whatever sort. The purpose of the list article, aside from being entertaining, is to be a serious resource for someone researching or studying or wanting to be educated about how orangutans are depicted in popular culture. That can be a serious topic, which in turn justifies the article in a serious encyclopedia.Noroton 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps editors keenly encouraging a merge might like to look a bit more carefully at the talk page and the edit history of this and the parent article before so keenly encouraging a merge.Satu Suro 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Indeed - there is a history behind the seperation of this article and Orang utan. There was disagreement over whether this info should be in the article, a third party broke the dead lock by creating this one which was acceptable to both disagreeing parties.Merbabu 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The implied criticism by the nominator needs addressing very carefully. This isnt how Wikipedia should be working - good to see the idealism, but practically every animal that exists on wikipedia has enthusiastic watchers of tv culture, obscure books and pc game culture providing unalphabetically added - ad hoc- poorly written lists of information. Very few articles appear to incorporate reasonable sections regarding explanation or context of the popular culture context (then the large questions 'whose popular culture?' arises as well)

On the basis of this nomination, it might be that every article in the category 'Animals in Popular Culture would need to go through similar process - and then after that - every animal that is listed in wikipedia probably has had a similar addition. The issues that arise from one and which have a consequent precedent set for almost every animal article in wikipedia - are (a) do the enthusiastic watchers of t.v. culture and obscure p.c. games have adequate warning that their moments of genius in associating their favourite with an animal with a wikipedia article have some avenue now implicitly cut off? (b) have editors who either watch or maintain (but not Own) of course - articles about animals - to be warned and aware of popular culture articles about to be have forced merges? I strongly suspect apart from Rat - which seems to be living happily in both worlds for some odd reason - many editors find popular culture sections offensive and out of place.

(My emphasis - as most seem to be missing the point) - I believe this aFd is out of place - and the issue - as it affects at least two categories and potential edit wars regarding merges over a number of articles - should be levered higher - and perhaps a wider view needs to be made of the whole range of articles which have been created - and the overal fate of the nature of the '..in Popular Culture' tendency and habits need to be broached higher up the food chain rather than this one article...Satu Suro 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep - NOT merge. The Orang utan article should be a serious encyclopedic article on orang utans. THis on the other hand is a list of junk that has nothing to do with orang utans. One of the most common criticisms of wikipedia is it's (lazy?) over-emphasis on pop culture. Like all the other useless pop culture trivia list, does anyone really think that a mention of the video games in which orangs appear is (a) encylopedic or (b) actually assists us in understanding orang utans? The answer is surely 'no'. The insistence on such lists in serious encyclopedia articles is a serious blight on wikipedia. Me thinks it's got more to do with bored teenagers (who actually know nothin about orang utans - or whatever other subject) wanting to list their favourite cartoon or video game. 'Orang Utans' and 'Orang Utans in Pop Culture' have nothing to do with each other. However, although i think it is a junk article, i can live with it's existence IF it means that the junk doesn't get into the orang utan article (as it does for so many other topics). Once the Sydney Opera House article had a list of the most obscure films and TV shows in which it had appeared - the list was half the article. Let's put a stop to this rubbish please. Or, if we must keep it somewhere, at least keep it seperate to the real articles. Can that be our compromise? Merbabu 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no merge Otto4711 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to delete this. By merging it to Orangutan, we will fail to create a better encyclopaedia. Otherwise send it to [1], the trivia trove that anyone can edit. — Indon (reply) — 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Indon. Incidentally, I hope wikitrivia catches on a bit more, I went there and clicked random page and got the main page back twice in a row. But I'm glad to see it's out there. Mango juice^talk 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively. Orangutans that appear in notable works of fiction should appear in the main article; and it strikes me as beyond cavil that (at least) the Murders in the Rue Morgue and the Pratchett use of orangutans are about highly notable works, and their presence in the Orangutan article would not detract from its serious in the least. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murders in the Rue Morgue is the Edgar Allen Poe story in question. --Tikiwont 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except they tell us nothing about Orangutans. Apparently they use orangutans as villians. Orangutans cannot be villians, it is completly inappropiate to suggest that any animal is in some way a villian. Orangutans are orangutans and the article should be about describing them as such. Sure this sort of infomation is quite appropiate for an Animals in literature article or similar, but should not be merged back into Orangutan. -- Michael Johnson 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not express an opinion here, but just wanted to clarify that Smerdin actually named the unnamed Edgar Allen Poe story.--Tikiwont 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad, bad article. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOT. Doesn't try to source anything, and the vague reference to an unnamed Edgar Allen Poe story is mind-boggling. The sectiion that seems like it might treat the subject of the use of orangutans turns out to be nothing more than a laundry list. Arkyan 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and improve. Acalamari 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that 'in popular culture' articles are usually "all the cruft that the main article rejected". Brianyoumans 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gorillas in popular culture and List of fictional apes and move to Apes in popular culture. SatuSuro has a point that we should apply the same principles to all these 'soandso in popular culture'. I think they should all be kept and deserve their own articles.--DorisHノート 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to avoid future edit wars or Delete if you must but do not merge into Orangutan. This is a lot of anthropomorphic cruft that has nothing to do with orangutans, but is rather a reflection on our own (specificly Western) society and our relationship to animals. -- Michael Johnson 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and strong do not merge There's little doubt this is a corner where cruft has been chased into, but can anyone actually suggest a better way of dealing with the onslaught? Kla'quot 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough and too big for the other articles. SakotGrimshine 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this particular article should be judged by itself, for it is much better sourced than the majority of "in popular culture" articles. The role in almost all the works cited is significant--sometimes central, as in Poe. I see no reason to accept or reject all animals in popular culture articles as a blanket policy--some have enough material, and some don't. This is one which clearly does. It even talks about the uses in general a little, and is not just a list. Good example for other articles. DGG 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references needed! However, the topic is notable and the content isn't horrible. ~a

(user • talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this can be expanded even more too Butnotthehippo 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG while leaving a possible (perhaps desirable) merge to editorial discretion. -- Black Falcon 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orangutans are a very, very notable topic. Orangutans in popular culture are not. 38.100.34.2 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orangutan, these are important examples but this list is small enough not be a section in the main article. Plasticbottle 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the people suggesting 'merge' do they have any thoughts on the view that this list actually has nothing to do with orang utans? Merbabu 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has a little (admittedly, not too much) to do with portrayals of orangutans in fiction. -- Black Falcon 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orangutans in pop culture? Trivia is considered to be "interesting, but not important". This information isn't even interesting. It also has no future of being particularly useful. The Filmaker 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's worth keeping, but not really fit for its own article. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons already well stated above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT, and WP:OR. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contrib 06:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify which part(s) is/are original research? The article is sourced by two secondary sources and, of course, the primary sources (i.e., films, books) themselves. Also, WP:OR is a part of WP:ATT. -- Black Falcon 07:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a new Apes in popular culture, per User:DorisH above, or otherwise keep. I think User:Noroton's argument further above that these articles are useful for research is valid and hasn't been refuted. I think the point made on the talk page that this article was created to avoid a war over content on Orangutan should weigh in its favour. This article's not at all exhaustive, but I haven't received the memo that all Wikipedia articles must now be either complete or deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:37, 29 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.