588:, there would be no Knowledge (XXG) (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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
486:, 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
362:- 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.
512:"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
629:
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?
607:
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
453:
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
778:
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
379:- 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
83:
602:
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
383:
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".
549:
219:
482:
541:
525:
342:
78:
834:- 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
545:
529:
149:
144:
213:
153:
323:
521:
136:
327:
533:
537:
176:
847:
826:
791:
759:
741:
714:
693:
639:
617:
597:
569:
507:
445:
426:
412:
393:
371:
354:
311:
63:
331:
585:
417:
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.
140:
108:
290:
123:
234:
283:
201:
132:
69:
319:
652:
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
195:
560:
is right: what you are doing is worse than useless, it's actively counterproductive to actually creating a decent article on this topic.
729:
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 --
251:
191:
103:
96:
17:
241:
473:
117:
113:
287:
657:
864:
207:
40:
295:, the point is that pretty much nothing in the current article is rescuable, and a total rewrite would be needed (so,
180:
669:
494:) is discussed in secondary source in would appear in a "good" article or article section on the topic. So the "
673:
661:
402:
750:
also being someone who does that makes perfect sense. Still, it would be nice if more editors would do this.
822:
461:
835:
814:
380:
279:
604:
860:
818:
36:
581:
755:
751:
722:
700:
689:
685:
624:
613:
609:
576:
565:
561:
441:
422:
350:
843:
389:
227:
520:
the topic when they are brought to AfD—I have done so myself multiple times in the past, see e.g.
278:
08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC) PS. Sources cited in prior Afd seem fine for expanding the artcle abou t
710:
635:
593:
552:. If you've looked at the sources and think you could write a decent article based on them, then
503:
469:
58:
802:
747:
255:
684:
improvement and doesn't take that much work if you have already located the necessary sources.
785:
735:
305:
272:
92:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
859:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
806:
487:
455:
296:
263:
259:
437:
418:
346:
810:
584:
is an argument that should be avoided in a deletion discussion. If we were to delete all
705:
I'll do that as time permits. I am curious how much of the current entries will remain.
680:(I have expanded it slightly since). Removing the garbage and writing a short stub is a
839:
385:
706:
631:
589:
499:
465:
367:
53:
781:
731:
726:
653:
557:
556:. You have talked the talk—will you now walk the walk? I'm sure you mean well, but
301:
268:
801:- does not have references to establish notability for this topic, let alone meet
170:
84:
Articles for deletion/Tarring and feathering in popular culture (2nd nomination)
550:
WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness
Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)
490:, quite obviously not all of the article's content is useless, as some of it (
345:
which demonstrate that this topic has indeed been treated in the literature.
645:
513:
779:
delete the existing garbage. We need to provide them with the clean slate.
363:
656:
and myself). I'm not asking you to write a 10,000-word, 100-reference
293:
542:
WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination)
526:
WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination)
838:, but I don't think anything from this article is worth merging.
546:
WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of
Thermopylae in popular culture
855:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
530:
WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction
79:
Articles for deletion/Tarring and feathering in popular culture
644:
It would demonstrate that you are willing and able to rewrite
289:). Although it is possible something could be rewritten using
454:
should be improved rather than deleted in accordance with
672:
status was done by
Piotrus later), and when the AfD for
677:
665:
516:-style lists like this into into proper prose articles
491:
166:
162:
158:
226:
240:
405:. No evidence that this is a topic worth listing.
522:WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction
252:list of works that mention Tarring and feathering
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
867:). No further edits should be made to this page.
318:Note: This discussion has been included in the
282:but are not obviously connected to the topic of
250:A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka
668:(the rest of the expansion and improvement to
534:WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction
8:
124:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
538:WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction
317:
284:Tarring and feathering in popular culture
817:which is more appropriately constructed.
133:Tarring and feathering in popular culture
70:Tarring and feathering in popular culture
76:
648:-style lists to proper prose articles
782:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
732:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
302:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
269:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
813:. Would not object to a redirect to
24:
492:with this being just one example
341:per the sources provided at the
322:lists for the following topics:
109:Introduction to deletion process
1:
608:worked, is not constructive.
476:) 09:29, July 18, 2022 (UTC)
99:(AfD)? Read these primers!
884:
676:was closed it looked like
498:argument" does not apply.
848:22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
827:00:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
792:11:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
760:12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
742:09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
715:07:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
694:15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
640:18:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
618:15:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
598:15:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
570:14:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
508:10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
446:05:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
427:18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
413:17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
394:16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
372:15:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
355:15:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
312:08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
64:11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
857:Please do not modify it.
674:Eco-terrorism in fiction
662:Earth in science fiction
483:Encylopedie des Märchens
436:Not more than a trivia.
258:, and the article fails
32:Please do not modify it.
664:closed, it looked like
75:AfDs for this article:
836:Tarring and feathering
815:Tarring and feathering
582:Nobody's working on it
381:Tarring and feathering
280:Tarring and feathering
181:edits since nomination
746:Right. The author of
480:And in addition, the
97:Articles for deletion
401:textbook example of
254:. Such a list fails
658:WP:Featured article
343:previous nomination
660:—when the AfD for
586:imperfect articles
324:Fictional elements
496:TNT tipping point
464:comment added by
335:
114:Guide to deletion
104:How to contribute
875:
788:
738:
704:
628:
580:
477:
410:
408:Ten Pound Hammer
320:deletion sorting
308:
275:
245:
244:
230:
174:
156:
94:
61:
56:
34:
883:
882:
878:
877:
876:
874:
873:
872:
871:
865:deletion review
790:
786:
740:
736:
698:
670:WP:Good article
622:
574:
459:
406:
328:Popular culture
310:
306:
277:
273:
187:
147:
131:
128:
91:
88:
73:
59:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
881:
879:
870:
869:
851:
850:
829:
796:
795:
794:
780:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
730:
718:
717:
448:
431:
430:
429:
403:WP:NOTTVTROPES
396:
374:
357:
336:
300:
267:
248:
247:
184:
127:
126:
121:
111:
106:
89:
87:
86:
81:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
880:
868:
866:
862:
858:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
828:
824:
820:
819:Shooterwalker
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
793:
789:
783:
777:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:
743:
739:
733:
728:
725:I do believe
724:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
702:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:
637:
633:
626:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
606:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
457:
452:
449:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
409:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
303:
298:
294:
291:
288:
285:
281:
276:
270:
265:
261:
257:
253:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:Find sources:
185:
182:
178:
172:
168:
164:
160:
155:
151:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
101:
100:
98:
93:
85:
82:
80:
77:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
856:
854:
831:
798:
727:User:Uncle G
681:
649:
605:WP:STARTOVER
553:
517:
495:
481:
460:— Preceding
450:
433:
407:
398:
376:
359:
338:
249:
237:
231:
223:
216:
210:
204:
198:
188:
90:
49:
47:
31:
28:
299:applies).
214:free images
787:reply here
752:TompaDompa
737:reply here
723:TompaDompa
701:TompaDompa
686:TompaDompa
625:TompaDompa
610:TompaDompa
577:TompaDompa
562:TompaDompa
438:GenuineArt
419:Nikkimaria
347:Nikkimaria
307:reply here
274:reply here
861:talk page
840:Waxworker
646:TV Tropes
514:TV Tropes
386:Rorshacma
37:talk page
863:or in a
803:WP:LISTN
748:WP:CARGO
707:Daranios
632:Daranios
590:Daranios
500:Daranios
474:contribs
466:Daranios
462:unsigned
256:WP:LISTN
177:View log
118:glossary
39:or in a
654:Piotrus
558:Piotrus
554:do that
330:, and
292:and/or
220:WP refs
208:scholar
150:protect
145:history
95:New to
832:Delete
807:WP:IPC
799:Delete
548:, and
488:WP:TNT
456:WP:AtD
434:Delete
399:Delete
377:Delete
360:Delete
297:WP:TNT
264:WP:IPC
260:WP:GNG
192:Google
154:delete
60:plicit
50:delete
811:WP:OR
682:major
650:about
518:about
332:Lists
286:(ex.
235:JSTOR
196:books
171:views
163:watch
159:links
16:<
844:talk
823:talk
756:talk
711:talk
690:talk
678:this
666:this
636:talk
614:talk
594:talk
566:talk
504:talk
470:talk
451:Keep
442:talk
423:talk
390:talk
368:talk
351:talk
339:Keep
228:FENS
202:news
167:logs
141:talk
137:edit
411:•
364:TTN
242:TWL
175:– (
846:)
825:)
809:/
805:/
758:)
713:)
692:)
638:)
616:)
596:)
568:)
544:,
540:,
536:,
532:,
528:,
524:,
506:)
472:•
458:.
444:)
425:)
392:)
370:)
353:)
334:.
326:,
266:.
222:)
179:|
169:|
165:|
161:|
157:|
152:|
148:|
143:|
139:|
52:.
842:(
821:(
784:|
754:(
734:|
721:@
709:(
703::
699:@
688:(
634:(
627::
623:@
612:(
592:(
579::
575:@
564:(
502:(
468:(
440:(
421:(
388:(
366:(
349:(
304:|
271:|
262:/
246:)
238:·
232:·
224:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
194:(
186:(
183:)
173:)
135:(
120:)
116:(
55:✗
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.