Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretations of Fight Club

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. We do not talk about deleting "Fight Club". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of Fight Club

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

I doubt that the subject of this article is notable, because while there have been many books and papers written on Fight Club, none of them (to my knowledge) have become significantly more famous than any other piece of generic academia. In other words, the subject matter is legitimate, but not important. Still, even if it were notable, hardly a single sentence in this article is neutral. I don't exaggerate: Section 1 is entirely about how the film is a "failure". Section 2 is entirely about how the film is pro-fascist. The author's use of references doesn't solve the neutrality problem, nor does it even make a convincing case for notability. You'll see what I mean when you look through it.

I don't think the article can be saved -- at the very best, it could hypothetically become a small section on the main Fight Club article. But we already have one of those. ICWP (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is clearly legit but the article is written like an essay. I would like to see it salvaged though. Is the editor willing to work on it? Francium12 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to work on it. I'm used to working on film articles, so when it comes to academic material, I'm not so strong. Depending on the outcome of this AfD, let's start discussion at the article's talk page to see how it could be improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is a sub-article of Fight Club (film). The main article is large in size, and if there was an "Interpretations" section with its various subsections, it would overwhelm everything else in the article. Per WP:SS, a sub-article about the academic interpretations of Fight Club was created. It is still a work in progress, as evidenced by all the academic material in the "Further reading" section. If there are NPOV concerns, we can discuss them on the article's talk page, but it is not a reason for deletion. (For what it's worth, I happen to like the film, so these sections weren't added to spite it... the sources being reliable and credible, the commentary is worth reporting.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I remember of the film it had a lot to say about consumerism and masculinuty and it would be nice to have a Neutral analysis of these themes. Sometimes deletion is the easy option people reach for... Francium12 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems clear this is a topic discussed in academia and an appropriate, notable split from the main article, which is already lengthy. As the main is a GA and well done, it isn't an issue of bloat that could be shortened to make room for more content. As Erik has noted, there are tons of sources waiting to be used. Wish more films had generated so much reliable, quality sources on themes and interpretations! Concerns about neutrality, tones, organization, etc. can and should be dealt with on the article talk page, not AfD. I also find it a bit disconcerting that the nominator is an SPA, particularly with the disagreements of late at Fight Club article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Because you don't talk about Fight Club. --173.16.55.8 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, he's got us there! Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the recommendation that it be tweaked to avoid the unintentional negative appearance (that could be combated in the meantime by perhaps moving the largely neutral section "Genre classifications" to the beginning of the article). Fight Club is a film that has been taught, analysed and studied in such depth that this is certainly a notable topic, and a comprehensive "Interpretations of..." section would not fit within the parent article; therefore I agree that summary style applies here. The nominator points to Fight Club (film)#Themes, but that section and this article cover almost entirely different ground, so there is little or no redundancy here. Steve ^T • C 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has received significant coverage and the article is well sourced. In theory a merge with the main article could be appropriate, but the main article is already very long, so keeping this standalone makes most sense. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collectonian. Cerebellum (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2009 (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.