Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA in fiction

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 keep. Many people say that this is a notable topic in it's own right, but others say that it isn't a topic that is notable in it's own right. However, on the delete side, they mention WP:TRIVIA, which is a guideline and not a policy (though personally, I think it a very good one). Also mentioned was WP:NOT. In this case though, the topic itself is rather notable, even if the quality of the article is questionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSA in fiction

Delete - directory of loosely- or un-associated items. The presence of agents of a particular government agency does not establish a relationship between the items on this laundry list, which otherwise have nothing in common with each other. Otto4711 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list, does not need own page, a fair paragraph is shown in the main page, and this basically reads as an essay. Dannycali 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as article begins with an introduction indicating notability and follows in a well-organized manner. Lists help demonstrate the degree or extent of something's influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The intro is OR, and it fails to show why a segment about the NSA even deserves its own article. We don't need a billion trivial references plopped into an article, this is pure trash and not what WP is all about. Dannycali 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've attempted some refactoring. Ronabop 07:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even The Washinton Post has covered the topic: A LOOK AT . . . Spy Satellites & Hollywood. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dannycali hits it on the head, the intro paragraph says that the NSA is often inaccurately portrayed. Wouldn't trying to make an accurate article about inaccurate portrayals be kind of, I dunno, not necessary? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is worth an article but this article isn't it, and should be deleted per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the subject is worth an article, then the article should be kept and improved. We dont fix by deleting. As for those who keep saying that the existence of a common theme is a meaningless association, i've commented on that reasoning in quite enough detail already; I'll just summarize that if theme and setting are loose associations, there are no close associations. DGG (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is mentioning the NSA a "theme"? Also, "We dont fix by deleting" is bullshit. Go read WP:CSD G11. Requiring a blatant rewrite is, right there, a candidate for deletion. 68.163.65.119 07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G11 refers to articles promoting a person, product, or service, not to articles in general. "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." (WP:CSD) There is no policy whatsoever that we delete articles in general which need extensive rewriting. Before you use insulting words, check your facts. DGG (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia, trivia, trivia. Here we've got a bunch of garbage like "This guy had an NSA ID card in an episode of Star Trek". I feel dumber having read it. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. I can't wait to see what these articles would look like when they contain all references to the various arms of our government. Encyclopedias are supposed to consist of high-level analysis (in Wikipedia's case, attributed to reliable sources), not vast dumps of primary source data. --68.163.65.119 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the requirement for "high level analysis"? Anything that would count as high level analysis, I'd think would qualify as OR. We're just an encyclopedia that collects and organizes material. DGG (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA ff m 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated trivia, most of these aren't any more notable for featuring the NSA. Crazysuit 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be useful to someone. Not paper. The article does need some cleaning out, yes. That's an editing thing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment, expand keep rationale. OK, Keep per DGG. The information is not trivial. This is information someone would turn to an encyclopedia for and there is plenty of room in the encyclopedia for it.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| The NSA is a notable subject, and references to the NSA in literature is as well. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment to above There's a statement somewhere on WP, it goes to the effect of Notability is not inherited. Just because the NSA is notable doesn't mean every possible mention is. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL is nto a valid reason for keeping and neither is WP:NOT#PAPER.Otto4711 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: Not Inherited.' Every possible mention is not. However, each item on the list is blue linked at least once. Notability collectively and individually. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeplist is notable, needs improvement. list does not look unrelated to me, the material looks significantly related. The proposers posiiton seems to based on his own cognizance of relations, which is fine, but not universal. --Buridan 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A very trivial list. RobJ1981 04:36, 2 October 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.