Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time and fate deities in popular culture: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:19, 7 May 2008

Time and fate deities in popular culture

The way to deal with bloated trivia sections in articles is to prune them, not to sp[lit them out into whole new "articles" comprised of nothing but trivia, especially when much of it is unsourced and appears to draw novel syntheses from other sources. Oh, and redlinked bands are not a good sign either. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, though it's certainly possible that a few of these are notable enough to appear in the respective deities' main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 12:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Deor (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:JUSTAPOLICY. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per previous comments.Ecoleetage (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discrminate and organized list of notable subjects) and per Wikipedia:Five pillars ( notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain exactly how these lists are discriminating (as opposed to including whatever scraps of dubious relevance anyone was able to come up with) and in what way they are organized (in particular, what the putative relationship between "time deities" and "fate deities" might consist in). Deor (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article only concerns specific time and fate deities with specific appearances in specific media. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you could. Deor (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have proven that sentiment wrong. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am highly sympathetic to this article, but without references that show that associated with time and fate dieties across cultures have been studied as a unit, the subject of this article inherently creates an original synthesis. If such references are found -- note, even if the studies do not explicitly deal with popular culture -- then grouping these dieties is no longer synthesis and this list then becomes a spinoff of a (possibly not yet written) article about the set, and how such deities are alike and different in various cultures. If such references are found within the 5-day discussion period, I'll !vote keep; if not, then the various sections should be merged/copied to the invidivual diety articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone didn't work hard on this. This is the result of me pruning all the miscellaneous crap from a bunch of other articles. And that is why it is a mess. IIRC I sorted it out a little, but there was a lot of redundancy there. There are other similar articles to this, and while I'm no really in favor of them, I think it's better to have the trivia separated from the actual article, particularly when the trivia overwhelms the article. I don't actually care if it's deleted. (I delete a lot of trivia myself)Andy Christ (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated. Someone worked very hard on this, but it's a mess on several levels-- trying to combine the "Three Fates", "Father Time", "Janus" and other mythical characters that fall in the Wikipedia Category of "Time and Fate Deities"; listing every reference in a movie, book, or game to one of the characters; and throwing in unsourced statements (maybe Anakin Skywalker was named for a Greek goddess, but I've never heard that one before). Like Quasi, I'm not inclined to vote keep either. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article is in the process of a revision. Nominated version versus current version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia list articles inherently violate WP:TRIVIA by encouraging that which should be discouraged. WillOakland (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feel free to read WP:TRIVIA and show me where it gives a valid reason to delete this article. Discouraged doesn't not mean forbidden, and citing a style guideline to support the deletion of content is not a strong argument. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the mindset I've come to know all too well—that trivia lists can be "discouraged" (wink) by creating separate articles for them to grow. If you think that is what the guideline means then something is wrong with your mind. WillOakland (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that "discouraged" in this context meant "someone can delete this content if they really want to, but if it looks like it might become otherwise useful in the future, it's better to keep it around and let other editors work with it". That might be a bit of a stretch, but I certainly think that this could be the start of a much more informative article, if it sticks around. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, just a massive trivia farm with little to no value. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, OR, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of trivia and original research. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change name I think we are failing to make the distinction between the article content, which can be changed by clicking the edit button, and the article subject, which is what AfDs are supposed to be about. Right now this article seems to be a bare list of examples, but the subject seems notable, if a little poorly defined. Part of the problem with this article is it's name, and it would make more sense to have a articles focused on either Time or Fate deities, since they are clearly two different things. Or perhaps something a little more notable like Greek and Roman deities in popular culture. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Time and fate deities are not "clearly two different things", as they share a category (Category:Time and fate deities) and many ancient deities have offices that "clearly" overlap. (How can fate be separate from time?) As for my vote on the article, see below. --Yamara ✉ 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense, but it's not a connection that comes intuitively to me. Must be something wrong with my mind :P --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than violating citation guidelines and perhaps some OR, I see no reason to delete this article. The subject is in fact, notable... and just because an article needs work doesn't mean it should be deleted. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strategic Keep I favor methods that work. User Andy Christ says above he used the article as a dump for listcruft. Bully for him, I say; I did the same on Immortality in fiction. The crufters need somewhere to play, or they return more readily to the serious articles. This is non-trivial reasoning and action that benefits Wikipedia. I've seen it work any number of times. --Yamara ✉ 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, it's quite simple to keep the crufters from coming back: Prosify or delete the trivia section. WillOakland (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how do these trivia sections keep coming back? Why, the unending tide of crufters unwilling to stay in the sandbox, of course. Please don't pretend that this kind of Prohibition works on a wiki than invites anonymous IPs from elementary schools to edit its articles. I would far rather they had their own pages clearly marked "...in popular culture" or "...in fiction" than have to spend the manhours watching every article. Seriously, I'm going to be one of the people having to do this to the dozens of articles of Time and fate deities, instead of letting this one be a harmless crufttrap. No thank you. I reject the additional drudgework and aggravation you recommend for me. STRONG KEEP. Who knows, maybe they'll even get an article out of it. --Yamara ✉ 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my experience the sections typically return by someone (often an admin) quickly reverting their removal as "vandalism." In those cases where I've been able to sneak the deletion under the radar I don't see them come back. You have said outright that the material doesn't belong here but you want the article kept anyway. I hope the closing admin considers this. WillOakland (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's now Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, of which I am a member, which seeks to improve IPC type articles. We are just finishing an assessment drive, and we have quite a few articles under our scope that we can work on. The charge that no one is concerned with these types of articles is no longer strictly true, it is now an issue of time and perhaps fate. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles on "in popular culture" as inherently unencylopedic. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture is a valid field of academic study with many books written on the subject. To dismiss all "pop culture" articles as "unencyclopedic" is dismissive and contributes nothing to the debate. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely a pop culture article, it is a a pop culture list article that, like so many others, has been created by dumping random trivia rather than referring to any academic studies. WillOakland (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak the truth. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be deleted. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source further. Certainly consider a split--there seems to be enough material here for several articles. Deletion is hardly an appropriate response to an article that is too long. Of course, the consensus is clearly against the comment just above--many IPC articles have been kept at AfD, and some are already fairly well sourced. I note it takes much longer than 5 days to deal properly with an article like this, but it would go faster if the people wanting to delete would instead help to improve. DGG (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle's comment above. Just because it says "popular culture" in the title doesn't make it an actual referenced study of same. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 :::You speak the truth. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be deleted. --[[User:ErgoSum88|ErgoSum88]] ([[User talk:ErgoSum88|talk]]) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' and source further. Certainly consider a split--there seems to be enough material here for several articles. Deletion is hardly an appropriate response to an article that is too long. Of course, the consensus is clearly against the comment just above--many IPC articles have been kept at AfD, and some are already fairly well sourced. I note it takes much longer than 5 days to deal properly with an article like this, but it would go faster if the people wanting to delete would instead help to improve. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per Stifle's comment above.  Just because it says "popular culture" in the title doesn't make it an actual referenced study of same. [[Special:Contributions/71.9.8.150|71.9.8.150]] ([[User talk:71.9.8.150|talk]]) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)