Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludovico technique

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.  Sandstein  06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovico technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This "technique" seems to have no real "notability" outside of the novel (and film adaption). It's present one of the most famous scenes of a very famous movie, but it's still not relevant by itself, in a sense that make us make an article for it. The article is full of original search (the only reference is the original novel itself) and unsourced trivia. damiens.rf 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Clockwork Orange. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While my gut instinct is to agree with the merge, clicking on the Google Books link takes me to plenty of relevant, non-trivial, independent sources. While the current article may stink, it's clear that there's enough information to make a reasonable article out of it. Since I don't have time to add this myself, I'll probably tag it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My reasoning is a little experimental— and evolving— but this is how I am thinking:

As a user, if I know I am looking for something that I know's a thing, I often prefer to find that thing in it's own article (reassures me that my recollection that the thing's a thing is valid). Take that for whatever it's worth. =)

As someone thinking about culture, I tend to see topics as part of a cultural tissue. In this sense, the items found in the section In popular culture represents the indepedent connectivity of that tissue to the rest of the culture. Anchoring that to a name and details is what an encyclopedia topic does. The connectivity confers notability, the specificity of that connectivity (the iconic image, the various references) confers independent notability.

As an editor, I see that independent connectivity, and think, yeah, this may need it's own IPC section, so the topic may have some structure that shouldn't necessarily embed in a larger article.

As a Wikipedian, I tend to think that if all the article did was allow one to refer to such an image as something more specific than, "...that Clockwork Orange scene with the guy strapped in front of a television or whatever with hooks pulling his eyes open...", if all the article accomplished was to make such a sentence easier to say, it has pulled its weight as an independent topic. Why? Consider the number of people who would get and are somewhat likely to hear something like, "...that Clockwork Orange scene, etc....". Those people deserve the focus such an article provides. They are, in a sense, a constituency.

-SM 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is mentioned enough in popular media as well as news results, to get people wondering if its real or not. Google news archive has 64 results until I remove anyone that mentions Clockwork, and then it drops to 30. Google Book search shows it in 481 books. Removing any that mention the wore mentions of "Clockwork Orange" and it drops to about 100 [1]. Some of those other results mentioning the film which the technique was first introduced in, might still be valid and not just talking about things in the context of the film. Dream Focus 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The technique is referenced in numerous books and so our editing policy indicates we should retain this. It might be sensible to merge into some other article such as Clockwork Orange or aversion therapy but it's hard to choose between them and such action is not achieved by deletion. Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite from scratch. There appear to be sufficient solid third-party discussion of this fictional device (e.g. in Karolides, Nicholas (1993). Censored Books. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810826674. and Nelson, Thomas (2000). Kubrick, inside a Film Artist's Maze. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253213908.) that there is no reason whatsoever to leave this article as a mere primary-/un-sourced lead and a crappy {{inpopularculture}} list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are, a rewrite from scratch would make it better. A more modest target might be just to replace the bit describing how the technique is "classical conditioning", etc, which arguably strays into OR/SYNTH. -SM 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Clockwork Orange: The fictional therapy appears to have several mentions in reliable third-party and secondary sources, but I do not believe that there is enough coverage outside of trivial mentions to extract content about the specific technique without using original research. Since the current content is mostly original research or unreferenced, I believe that a merge is the best option at this point until the content is supported by the appropriate references and can be split from the main article. Jfgslo (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2011 (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.