Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secret societies 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of secret societies in popular culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ill-defined, indiscriminate list that mixes real and fictional organizations ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to SPECTRE. Zero references apart from 2 about the real-life KKK, and a primary-sourced entry regarding The Da Vinci Code, and few entries that are notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable fancruft. If one wishes to write an actual prose section about secret societies in popular culture, they can do so at Secret society and split it off if it becomes too large._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very few of the entries on this list are actually notable enough to have their own articles, and many of these are debatable if they even qualify as a "secret society" as defined by out article on the topic. As stated by the nom, the only actual sources being used are not on the overall topic, but on a specific organization that already has its own extensive article. Adding a prose topic to the main article, as suggested by Zxcvbnm, would probably be a good idea, but there is nothing salvageable about this unsourced list that would be helpful in doing that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:IINFO and MOS:POPCULT. Listings of pop culture elements down to the most trivial are not encyclopedic, and topics like this should be discussed in summary style prose instead. This can be done, as Zxcvbnm has noted, in the parent article, and split if the content becomes too much. Avilich (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another indiscriminate, effectively unreferenced list. Fun fact: one of the cited authors, Blee, was my teacher at the university. She is an academic expert on KKClan, but her work has nothing to do with the article, and just shows that the citations used are pretty random. Sure, KKClan has been written about, in fiction and non-fiction, but that doesn't mean we need such a list (however, KKClan article can use a good 'in popular culture' section). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another "this isn't TV Tropes" one. Agree with everyone above. Even if it was fully sourced and the sources weren't weird stuff like "here is a source to show that the KKK is racist", it still would not be an encyclopedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (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.