Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream

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 redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Mainstream

[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)

I am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Philosophy, Popular culture, Religion, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[]

Redirect to the current disambig page as there is no universal concept of "Mainstream" and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 0xDeadbeef 07:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[]

WP:TNT this as a redirect as per SirHex Deadbeef. If there is anything recoverable from the explosion, you can find good places to store the rubble. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[]

Process comment I do not see a compelling reason to delete this. It looks like writing the "mainstream this" and "mainstream that" articles in summary style could be done incrementally, with content out-merged there, eventually leaving this page as a disambiguation page, without anything needing to be deleted. So, I guess this is a keep in terms that nothing needs to be deleted to accomplish the reasonable goals Piotrus is setting out. In fact, keeping everything here in history might be quite preferable for attribution purposes. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[]
@Jclemens I am always supportive of preserving history (SOFTDELETE), but redirecting accomplishes this. The problem is that the article is an ORish WP:SYNTH of "various concepts called mainstream" that no reliable source has presented (if it was a list, it would be failing WP:NLIST...). I think the reader would be better served with a disambig and several new articles (I've created a redirect for mainstream literature, and I think mainstream science and mainstream religion can be created as well from splits of content here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure that we're in any substantial disagreement here on the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[]

@Jclemens Redirect+split vs keep is I think a bit of disagreement :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Leaning keep and improve. Obviously "mainstream" is a word evocative of thought that is the opposite of whatever is considered "fringe". Identifying and describing its parameters may be difficult, but I feel we owe it to our readers. BD2412 T 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[]
- Note - I would have no objection to moving this to draft pending improvements. BD2412 T 03:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Redirect to disambiguation page. Does a much better job of getting people to relevant information. Cobbling together every definition of mainstream is going to be WP:OR and doesn't fit on Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Redirect to mainstream (disambiguation). I can see what has been attempted here and respect the effort, but the asserted definition of the topic is false. Mainstream does not include all popular culture, nor is it mutually exclusive with the idea of a subculture. A mainstream results from the predominant power structure within any given culture - this may contradict the mainstream of other fields or cultures and may be at odds with popular culture (consider the assertion in mainstream economics that all market actions are rational vs the popular belief that people's actions are regularly impulsive and/or irrational).

It does not make sense to attempt a holistic treatment of mainstream because it does not exist in a holistic way. Similarly a summary article isn't viable because there are too many mainstreams to cover (mainstream food, mainstream cars, mainstream children's books) and most treatments of that subject are highly culturally specific (for example, in China the Jonas Brothers are niche, not mainstream). We shouldn't encourage the creation of an article that defines mainstream as something that exists outside of its originating context. SFB 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[]

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.