Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish in popular culture

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 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amish 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)

Could this be a proper article? Probably. But the current TVTropic listicle is not the way to do it. Like dozens of similar lists of trivial mentions, this poorly referenced piece fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, partially WP:OR and WP:V. Information like "In George Romero's horror film Diary of the Dead (2007), a deaf Amish man appears and helps the main survivors before killing himself, after being infected." is pure noise and not even on topic. Once again, a listing of all media which mentions the term Amish is not the same as analyzing, in an encyclopedic style, the connection between Amish and the popular culture, or their portrayals. This needs to be based on reliable, WP:SIGCOV-meeting secondary sources, and an ORish dupe of https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Amish is not the way to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Religion, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has a valid point when it comes to this article. I support merging all the reliably sourced information to Amish#In popular culture. That way there would still be something about popular culture and the Amish, but it wouldn't need to be its own article. However, this page could also be a redirect so that someone in the future could, if they so chose, follow the advice of the OP, add appropriate reliable sources and avoid the list becoming indiscriminate and falling into original research. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 How does merging refenced trivia like "Crimson Stain is the true story of Edward Gingerich, the only Amish man ever convicted of homicide, that is involuntary manslaughter, while being diagnosed with schizophrenia." or "The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 1 (1994), Season 14, Episode 19 (2003)" (that doesn't even explain the context, I guess Amish appeared in that episode?) would benefit the Amish article? What we need for that section (or the article) are secondary sources that discuss the relation between Amish in pop culture, which is not the same as listing of media in which Amish are mentioned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but if someone carefully went through the sourced content and organized it in a correct manner, then it could be a substantive section in that article. Historyday01 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 I do believe I looked and I didn't notice any analysis, just description (as in, "Amish appeared in work X"). If you saw a single sentence that you think is worth rescuing, please tell us which - such content can always be merge to the main Amish article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, brushing past the usual barrage of irrelevant policies brandished above. Like most of these articles it's fairly crap, but not crap enough to delete, and should not be merged back to the main article, from which it was split off. Actually this one is much better than most. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:TNT, although it can be restarted in Amish if someone wishes to make a presentable popular culture section of prose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - List of trivia with no sourced content actually covering the overall topic. The majority of the listed items are extremely trivial, and the sourcing is poor, so nothing should be preserved or Merged. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a reason these popular culture sections get split out of the main article. It's because they are full of crap and this is an easy way to clean up the main article without causing a fight. Merging it back in is entirely unproductive. There is no encyclopaedic discussion whatsoever of the portrayal of Amish in popular culture, just a list of plot snippets. A proper encyclopaedia article would make connections between these disparate works. The absence of that makes this a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Piotrus is quite right that an article at this title might be possible. The is The Amish in the American Imagination for a start and The Amish and the Media for seconds. However, there is nothing usable in the current article either in its prose or its references making it a WP:TNT case. SpinningSpark 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is entirely WP:OR, and the policy says that we shouldn't have articles about topics that aren't covered in reliable independent sources. The Amish are definitely a suitable topic, but this spinoff article does not have any WP:SIGCOV. It's conceivable that the sources are out there, but there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this WP:OR, as the article is entirely material that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 20 May 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.