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. ✗plicit 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarring and feathering in popular culture[edit]

Tarring and feathering in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention Tarring and feathering. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC) PS. Sources cited in prior Afd seem fine for expanding the artcle abou tTarring and feathering but are not obviously connected to the topic of Tarring and feathering in popular culture (ex. [1]). Although it is possible something could be rewritten using [2] and/or [3], the point is that pretty much nothing in the current article is rescuable, and a total rewrite would be needed (so, WP:TNT applies). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists.
• Keep per the sources provided at the previous nomination which demonstrate that this topic has indeed been treated in the literature. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial collection of pop culture not suitable for an encyclopedia. If any actual relevant sources are provided, they should be explored in the main article in the context of a proper prose discussion on the topic. If it proves to have too much weight, then the topic can be split out at that time. Nothing in the article looks to be suitable for merging or retention. TTN (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A TV Tropes style list of basically any time the concept of being tarred and feathered was mentioned in pop culture, no matter how minor, with absolutely no reliably sourced content discussing or analyzing the topic. While an actually sourced, prose discussion on the main Tarring and feathering article is very likely possible, this article is certainly not it, and should not be preserved for such an attempt as even the few potentially notable examples have no sourced content discussing them here, and no information outside of "it happened in this thing". Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. No evidence that this is a topic worth listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there is - as noted, there were sources provided at the previous AfD that demonstrated that the topic meets GNG. And as noted then, deletion is not cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not more than a trivia. GenuineArt (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs clean-up, trimming and sourcing, but there are a number of secondary sources available both on individual entries appearing, and appearances in fiction more broadly. Enough so that a non-stubby article could be created, so I don't see the problem with notability. So this article should be improved rather than deleted in accordance with WP:AtD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranios (talk • contribs) 09:29, July 18, 2022 (UTC)
  • And in addition, the Encylopedie des Märchens [encyclopedia of the fairy tale], p. 305-309, has a chapter dedicated to tarring and feathering, focussing mainly on folk tales/fairy tales/droll stories, but also includes the literature and comics we have here. If the notability issue should hinge on the title "popular culture" as opposed to "in fiction", why are leading a deletion discussion here rather than a what's-the-best-name-for-the-topic-discussion? So far for notability. As for WP:TNT, quite obviously not all of the article's content is useless, as some of it (with this being just one example) is discussed in secondary source in would appear in a "good" article or article section on the topic. So the "TNT tipping point argument" does not apply. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Theoretically, this could be fixed" is a rather useless observation if nobody actually fixes it. Considering that you made the same argument more than a year ago during the previous AfD and the article still hasn't been fixed—by you or anybody else—it rings rather hollow. I'm all in favour of turning garbage TV Tropes-style lists like this into into proper prose articles about the topic when they are brought to AfD—I have done so myself multiple times in the past, see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, and WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination). If you've looked at the sources and think you could write a decent article based on them, then do that. You have talked the talk—will you now walk the walk? I'm sure you mean well, but Piotrus is right: what you are doing is worse than useless, it's actively counterproductive to actually creating a decent article on this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TompaDompa: Nobody's working on it is an argument that should be avoided in a deletion discussion. If we were to delete all imperfect articles, there would be no Wikipedia (though, granted, this one is rather far from perfect). The obligation to improve an improvable article is not on anyone specifically. If it were, shouldn't it be first and foremost on those most distressed with the current state, i.e. the deletion !voters, in case it becomes clear that it is improvable? Your record of constructive work on Wikipedia is beyond question. I would work on this article if I had unlimited time. I like to believe that I am doing constructive work here, too, in the limited time I have, and whenever I am not caught up in deletion discussions. Sometimes on articles nominated for deletion in the past, sometimes on ones nominated now, sometimes somewhere else. Why should I specifically spend my time here and not there? Nominating an article for deletion is easy. Improving an article is quite a bit of work. If I !vote keep again at another deletion discussion, should I improve that, too? Should I abstain from deletion discussions because I am not personally improving all articles nominated for deletion? That doesn't feel right. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keeping a garbage (not just "imperfect") version of an article like this does not get us any closer to having a decent version of that article—if I were rewriting this to get it up to snuff, I would not keep any of the current content—but deleting the page so we may WP:STARTOVER actually might. If you want there to be a decent article on this topic, you should either be in favour of deleting it and starting over from scratch or rewriting it from scratch without deletion. Arguing that it should be kept because it could theoretically be improved, when that demonstrably hasn't worked, is not constructive. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @TompaDompa: You are entitled to that opinion, which I don't share. The existence of this article in no way hinders anyone to create a better version from scratch if they like and don't want to use elements of the existing one. Would it change your opinion for the future if I were to "walk the walk" in this case? Daranios (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would demonstrate that you are willing and able to rewrite TV Tropes-style lists to proper prose articles about the topic, which would be a good thing since there is a dearth of editors who do so (the only ones I know of who somewhat regularly do so are Piotrus and myself). I'm not asking you to write a 10,000-word, 100-reference WP:Featured article—when the AfD for Earth in science fiction closed, it looked like this (the rest of the expansion and improvement to WP:Good article status was done by Piotrus later), and when the AfD for Eco-terrorism in fiction was closed it looked like this (I have expanded it slightly since). Removing the garbage and writing a short stub is a major improvement and doesn't take that much work if you have already located the necessary sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @TompaDompa: I'll do that as time permits. I am curious how much of the current entries will remain. Daranios (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              @TompaDompa I do believe User:Uncle G has done nice rescues and rewrites in the past. Just saying. Feel free to point to others. Maybe we can form a proper ARS project :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              Right. The author of WP:CARGO also being someone who does that makes perfect sense. Still, it would be nice if more editors would do this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. When 99% if not 100% of existing content violates OR/MOS:POPCULT/etc., TNT is the solution. Granted, second to the total rewrite. But keeping a list of trivia b/c a related topic might be written from scratch is bad. Most editors who'd like to help won't bother, as they are afraid to delete the existing garbage. We need to provide them with the clean slate. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not have references to establish notability for this topic, let alone meet WP:LISTN / WP:IPC / WP:OR. Would not object to a redirect to Tarring and feathering which is more appropriately constructed. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Excessive pop culture trivia, sources brought up in this discussion & previous AFDs don't demonstrate notability as a standalone topic, the few good sources brought up by nom could be incorporated into the main article for Tarring and feathering, but I don't think anything from this article is worth merging. Waxworker (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (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.