Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus in fiction (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Transfinite (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 28 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Succubus in fiction

AfDs for this article:
Succubus in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Renomination. First AfD closed as "no consensus", largely based on procedural reasons. AfD is no longer swamped, the RfC has failed, and this article is still an unacceptable trivia collection, with no indication of independent works on the topic. Eyrian 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge selectively with the main article, and preserve the remaining items, either on the talk page or a subpage thereof. As far as I can see the only people who'd want to separate "succubus in fiction" from the article in chief on succubus are those folks who think that succubi are real. The appearances of succubi in works of fiction are easily referenced to the works themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the histories, you will notice that was attempted and reverted. --Eyrian 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said in the nomination, the previous AfD was mostly opposed by those that had no opposition to later renomination once things had died down. They have. --Eyrian 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I had no intent to nominate any further articles for awhile. This one got back on the list because it's fundamentally the same nomination, just resurrected on procedural grounds. --Eyrian 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • When nominator says this, and then proceeds to make ten-odd highly controversial AfD nominations over the next four days, there is room for doubt about good faith. Nominator should stop these kinds of nominations altogether, and do something useful for Wikipedia instead. RandomCritic 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess your definition of a little while is different from mine. I work fast. In the meantime, feel free to browse User:Eyrian/Created. --Eyrian 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And what do you have to say regarding my refuting of Chunky Rice's point above? Most of the keep votes in the last AfD revolved around the process being too clogged at the time. It is no longer clogged. --Eyrian 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not really this article, is it? That's a very new article, that has essentially nothing to do with this one. What, praytell, existing part would you be citing to " Our Ladies of Darkness: Feminine Daemonology in Male Gothic Fiction"? "In Unreal Tournament 2004 one of the gothic default bots is called Succubus"? Perhaps "In Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, a succubus appears as a monster in Level 2 at the Maze of Tribulations. Her attacks include Charm Person, which causes the chaos status ailment on male party members."? The point is, the article as it stands is worthless. It possesses no potential for improvement. An article could be written about the subject, perhaps, but it has nothing to so with this one. --Eyrian 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say nothing. Some of the information in the current article is likely salvageable. Not a lot, but some. Regardless, you'll notice that I've never advocated "keep." I'm simply contributing information to the discussion. I don't have access to the source documents in question, so I can't do a re-write, but somebody else might. -Chunky Rice 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? So, if a comment about a garage band said "there are probably sources somewhere", it'd be ignored out of hand. Why are people so willing to permit their pet syntheses continue so readily? --Eyrian 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha - Eyrian, I have in my time had to look up all number of erudite things and am well aware of the depth of information actually published - much of which is not readily accessible online. Thus, based on hwat I know about succubi and what has been published already, I am estimating that there are indeed commentaries in some horror/supernatural book on media etc. that will summarise or report on this beastie. I have met people with whole libraries on the most erudite of topics and this is broader than many...and we're not talking about a garage band here though are we...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While, no doubt, there are sources on a variety of esoteric topics, how can we be sure that there are any on a particular one? By citing them. An article that cites no sources indicating its existence means nothing. Right now, this is like a garage band article, that cites public records for the births of the members, and receipts for the purchase of instruments. There's indications that the topic has some research, but there's no actual research being cited. And even if something could be built, with all new research, why defend a list of trivial references? --Eyrian 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting a global figure of mythology and occult with all sorts of psychological connotations by comparing it with ...what? some contrived local occurrence -stretching logic and belief to prove the point. I can't take this comparison seriously. Why defend it? Why attack it so aggressively and uncompromisingly - you use expressions like "blight on wikipedia" and written a nice big essay on your feelings on the topic. Your talk page and contribs are littered with acrimony and you yourself even dropped off for a couple of days, writing this upon returning but stated today that you've not found this disruptive at all? But we digress. We both have our fixed world-views and I can see neither of us changing so we'll have to leave it to consensus :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources are out there" is never an acceptable argument for keeping an article. Read WP:V again, and you will see that the it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources. If you want to keep the article, get the sources yourself, don't rely on some one else to do it. Jay32183 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. IPSOS (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eyrian has tried to remove many such articles, and failed in a few. Apparently he intends to keep going to get them all. I still AGF in that he is trying to improve the encyclopedia by removing content he doesnt think important, and force those who do to defend it repeatedly. It is so much easier to nominate for deletion than defend, to remove than create. I think the issue is now clear: is WP to continue to be a comprehensive encyclopedia including popular culture? DGG (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I'm sure it's real difficult to plug "succubus in popular culture" into Google Scholar and link the results. --Eyrian 01:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 3 more sources There seems to be a good general book on the subject, and some academic articles dealing with the individual characters in the literature section. Judging from a preliminary scan of the GS results listed above, it should be possible to source that entire section, and bout double its size. Apparently critics and scholars don't think this sort of material insignificant. I can't speak to whether the games section is sourceable--in general the sources for such games are not the ones of which I have much knowledge, though I did upgrade an article on an element of them once-- one of my first rescues in Wikipedia. Frankly, now that both the general topic and the items can be shown to be sourceable by clearly conventional RSs, I do not know what else can be asked. The WP standard is N as V by RS. Well started for this one. time to work on improving and restoring the others. DGG (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot abide this. Looking up a search string in Google scholar and sticking that in as a reference is completely unacceptable, and intellectually dishonest. That is not how research works. You are working off tiny preview strings, without any of the context a work as a whole provides. --Eyrian 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete List of minor appearances in fiction = trivia = loosely associated topics. Merge the major ones back into the main article Corpx 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article could well be expanded to discuss more than just a list of appearances. Referenced (thus notable) phenomenon presented in a decent-enough format for a starting place. Article has been tagged for cleanup just this month. ◄Zahakiel► 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That cleanup tag was added as a result of the last AfD. No kind of cleanup actually happened, and there is none since. --Eyrian 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello again. Let me repeat: this month. I am not concerned with "why" it happened, so let's not be impatient here, okay? Some suggestions were given above that may well be taken, and the article is more than merely about "trivial" mentions, so I'm going to stand by what I said. Have a nice day. ◄Zahakiel► 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note this example: "Glenn Danzig 's horror punk band Samhain has what appears to be a succubus on the box art of their Unholy Passion EP." You could argue that this is just a matter for editing. I think it represents perfectly the article as a whole. This doesn't even rate as "trivia" - it's trivial. Trivia is something from pop culture you might be expected to remember. This is a level below that. The concept of the succubus is worthy of interest - this isn't. MarkinBoston 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've a question about that statement... how can an article about one specific topic (i.e., succubi in fiction) be a collection of loosely associated topics? If you wish to say that the mentions in certain elements of the article are trivial, I'd probably agree with you... but I don't think that amounts to a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. ◄Zahakiel► 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the mentions are trivial, the works it links are loosely associated. --Eyrian 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not an answer to the question I asked of that editor. There is one topic at issue here; the triviality of individual mentions are not a matter of the overall subject, as you should well know, and a matter of pruning/cleanup rather than AfD - as you should also well know. In any event your statement is false; several of the entries of the article have the succubus as a fairly important plot-point, the title of the work, or the subject of academic study under that name. ◄Zahakiel► 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only pursue deletion when pruning all the bad entries results in an empty article. As it would in this case. --Eyrian 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you know this is still not answering my question... and I'm trying to get clarification from someone else. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not asking me, either, but the reasoning is this: The connection between the members of this list is trivial. There's nothing about having the word "succubus" in the text of these different works that connects them in any significant way. It would be as if I made a list that contained Coca-Cola, candy canes and the scissors on my desk because they are all have the color red on them. These things could certainly be used to discus the color red in the context of an analysis, but independently, simply as a list, the connection is tenuous.
As far as deletion vs. keeping goes, I think it's clear that the underlying topic of succubus in fiction is notable. It's been written about by reliable sources. The only question is whether or not this article could be improved with that information, or if it's totally beyond recovery and should be deleted. That's my take, anyway. -Chunky Rice 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's what I think he's saying too. My reply to that would be that the premise is off... we're not just talking about "mere mentions," in many of these cases, so I'd say there is definite room for improvement. Obviously, not all of the current list elements merit inclusion, but what I'm seeing is a lot of hastiness and opining by certain editors about what is "impossible" to do or not do. ◄Zahakiel► 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's a mere mention or a heavy involvement. The works of fiction aren't actually connected. It would be like saying Santa and stop signs are connected, to extend the example of red things. It's not because they only contain a little red, it's that it doesn't actually mean anything just to say they are both red. Jay32183 01:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it very well might. Examining why stop lights are red, and why Santa's clothing is red (to extend the analogy yet further) would potentially reveal psychological connections. And that's just an example. One man's trivia is another man's thesis. The article in question does point out there is some psychological merit to the analysis of this archetype, and looking at the impact of the archetype on fictional works would go a ways to looking at that. But, of course, not everyone is going to like articles that attempt this. ◄Zahakiel► 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, in order to have an article, such a man would need to publish a reliable source. --Eyrian 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason this should be deleted.Hentai Jeff 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (now weak keep) There is the potential for a good article on the topic but this isn't it. The majority of the mentions are trivial (especially the computer game ones - I'm afraid mythology is often fodder for minor game characters, as is clear here). Trim it back to the topics where the succubus plays a major role in the item under discussion and merge it back into the main entry. It would be worth someone chasing this topic and aiming to create a sandbox version. Aim to make it more solid prose with a larger analysis of the important appearances and try to avoid lists (as in entries like this it can leave it wide open to "trivia injection"). As an example of what can (should?) be done look at the recent major rewrite of World War III in popular culture [2]. (Emperor 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Another in a long series of nominations in questionable faith, based on patently spurious assumptions about the inadmissibility of fiction-related articles. AfD should never be the court of first resort; if nominator does not try to fix articles, in good faith, through the normal editing process, it's reasonable to reject the nomination.RandomCritic 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that this was previously nominated, given a few weeks to improve, and then renominated. But don't let the total destruction of your argument get in the way of following me around to defend unsourced, trivial articles. Keep fighting the good fight. --Eyrian 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Articles should be able to languish without sources indefinitely. Not like verifiability is important or anything. --Eyrian 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when was verifiability pseudopolicy? And yes, less than a month. Articles should not be created without sources in hand. If you can't prove it, don't post it. But, by all means, if this nomination fails, I'll check on it in another month, then perhaps a year after that. No doubt when my admirers have lost interest, there will be no troubles. --Eyrian 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominator's name doesn't appear on the talk page. Nominator has no edits prior to first AfD. Nominator has not worked in good faith to edit the page. Nominator could be working to provide sourcing, but isn't. In other words, nominator isn't an active part of the constructive editing process. RandomCritic 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put, I don't believe it can be sourced. I'm not going to throw my time down a black hole. And, yes, sometimes deletion is an essential part of the editing process. Ask any professional editor. --Eyrian 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Cute, but since no one is arguing against that position pretty much irrelevant. You're not addressing the issue of excessive haste and pushing of your own views as policy. Artw 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were pushing my own views as policy, this wouldn't be under debate, would it? Why do you think it's excessive haste? Does it take three weeks to make it to a library? To have books arrive from Amazon? Certainly not with the time some people spend on Wikipedia. How long is long enough? Why? -- Eyrian 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My point was that trying to close this AFD as keep for procedural reasons won't work because the policy and guideline failures are not being addressed. The proposal you're talking about was one for speedy deletion. No sources is a valid argument in an AFD, and there isn't a counterargument. Jay32183 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are now three sources listed - question is, what is in them. Common sense that there will be some commentary within them - so that's a counterargument. lack of involvement in talk page prior to nomination is a failure to follow WP:AGF - a fundamental principle of WP. Remember this is a volunteer project and works on goodwill. Too gross an intrusion on that undermines the goodwill and further production of the overall encyclopedia.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should add that the aim is the production of an encyclopedia- in the face of some promising sources the constructive response is to investigate and assess rather than to continue to push for wholesale deletion - to do so is to deliberately ignore promising material to prove a point.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the issue that this is a collection of loosely associated terms and it fails WP:NOT#DIR. I will always push for wholesale deletion in that case, because that is the only solution to that problem. Assuming good faith is not about protecting the feelings of other editors, it is about not accusing them of intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia when they simply made a mistake. That does not mean we should not correct that mistake. Jay32183 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bald assertion that they are all of them loosely associated has never been shown, just repeated, and repeated. The subject of a work is a close association, as is a major theme. short of the author, i cant think of what could possibly be more closely associated. DGG (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two works by different authors about similar things are not necessarily connected. Which means a source is required to show that connection. Jay32183 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy establishes the Succubus as an important theme in supernatural fiction. Artw 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, having popped over to the article to add that, it seems there are other sources as well. Artw 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed my vote to "weak keep" but it still needs a major re-write as it is still a list of very loosely related items (much of them only trivial appearances of the succubus). Perhaps trim it down first and expand the major appearances but there is a good article in here somewhere as the succubus is a strong theme that has numerous psychological overtones which could be drawn out in a less "listy" piece. (Emperor 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • No one is saying there can't be an article with the title "Succubus in fiction". A detailed article analyzing the role in fiction would be great. But that is not what this article is. This is a list of loosely associated fictional works. If you want to write the proper article after this one is deleted from the spot, go for it. But what we have here is unacceptable. Jay32183 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're making your vote on article quality Jay which is not what you're supposed to do; there can't be an article if the article is deleted. The correct vote is "keep and clean up in a big way". Delete is based on subject matter - if there are absolutely no sources (which it looks like there are, in which case ignoring them is not constructive nor conducive to WP building) or there can never be an article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, that is what I've said in my previous comments. If references are being found I don't see too big a problem with the major rewrite being done live. It might be easier to go with my previous plan (trim it down to non-trivial appearances) and merge it back to the main entry and work on this in a sandbox. However, the WWIII in popular culture was redone live so it is doable and would avoid extra levels of hassle. That said merging back would gguarantee that if anyone wanted to redo this article they'd have to do so with a better version - my fear in going for keep is that is seen as a vote to not change the article whereas it needs a lot of work. (Emperor 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment afd should not require an article to be withdrawn if a rewrite is possible and there is already some satisfactory content. AfD requires an article to be withdrawn only if there is no salvageable content. Otherwise the solution is keep and edit. DGG (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always rejected the idea that "in popular culture" articles are not sourced. Every single item is sourced to the work it appears in. They may not be nice footnotes, but they are sources. Also, you need to give more time between nominations than 20 days. This smells like "I'm going to nominate this article till it gets deleted" to me. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Succubus_in_fiction_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=154212577"