Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marduk 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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marduk in popular culture

A random list of fictional people, places, and things named "Marduk". Every single one of these things is unrelated to Marduk, and they seem to be more or less unrelated except in name, making this an indiscriminate collection of trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep nominator for some reason didn't mention the article just got off AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nominator misread the old nomination, and thought it was a year old, not a few weeks old. As may be, my reasoning above still applies, and the previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. An 'X in pop culture' page should give instances of X being used as a reference in pop culture, or of books, movies, or games erected around the historical fact of X. This article is a list of Things Named X in Games. That will not do. Hornplease 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just survived AfD.... shouldn't be a change of consensus this early. -M^ask 06:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination. Mine, well, isn't. Would you care to address the arguments I've made? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; articles should not be nominated to AfD over and over again. All the reasons given a week ago are still true.--Prosfilaes 07:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, the previous AFD was screwed up by a lousy nomination and an unrelated grudge against the nominator. Will my arguments be more valid in a month after the old AFD is a bit older? Will they be more valid in six months? A year? When does "This is just a list of random things named Marduk" get addressed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Every previous AfD was screwed up by something if you disagree with it. It takes time and effort to handle pages on AfD, and if it made it past one AfD, it's not an awful page that just must be deleted. Backing off reduces stress on people and the number of pages on AfD.--Prosfilaes 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Read the last AFD. It degenerates into an argument about the nominator's motives, and begins with a "this isn't my pop culture, get it off my wiki!" argument. Heck, I may have voted keep if I had seen that last AFD first. Why is a precedent set because of a bad nomination more important than the merits of the article? Are you planning to address the merits (or lack thereof) of this article?
        • Because the precedent means we hashed through already, and not asking people to argue over an article over and over is more important than deleting a marginal article. I addressed the merits of this article a week ago; why shouldn't that be enough.
        • As for this article, half of Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This article was probably created by someone wanting people to stop adding it to Marduk, which probably worked pretty well. Having this article lets a few new editors add something to an article and not get immediately reverted, and it saves the experienced editors sheperding Marduk some trouble. At the cost of letting a moderately unencyclopedic and moderately interesting and frequently read article stick around. What a deal.--Prosfilaes 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A bad decision is a bad decision -- how is this NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia? --Calton | Talk 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hornplease. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this was on AFD just a week or so ago, and kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or turn into disambig. Indiscriminate it stands and not warranting a main space article. Marskell 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no connection between these things except the spelling of their names. Putting it all together is just OR. Kevin 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article. Could be strengthened with more information on why usage is popular. Kukini 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you offer any reason that wouldn't be POV or OR? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I take on board A Man In Black's (somewhat vociferous) comments re the previous AfD, but it is still an (inadvertent) abuse of process to renominate so soon. This issue of speedy renoms is something we really ought to take a look at in general. Badgerpatrol 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Marduk. Spearhead 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unrelated to marduk except by name. --Mmx1 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per calton, without regard to the previous AfD. Article appears to fail Wikipedia:Importance and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Since none of the listed items has any relevance to the Mesopotamian god Marduk beyond a name, perhaps I should write John in popular culture, add a picture of King John I, and list every movie and TV series with a "John" character. Barno 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While your point with WP:NOT is well taken, Importence is an essay, not policy or guideline, so while it is interesting, it is not applicable. -M^ask 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno -- Hirudo 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty POV reason... --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge into Marduk. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep again. This was on AfD less than a month ago, and was a CONSENSUS KEEP. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails Wikipedia:Importance Aeon 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aeon. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like a disambiguation page gone bad. Arguments from previous AfD leave me unswayed. Fagstein 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with Marduk. It was originally part of that article, but was spilt from it here. --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to References to Marduk in popular culture to match other similar articles. Do not merge; the myth and legend articles get bogged down in modernfictioncruft unless that stuff gets split off like this. -Sean Curtin 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But are these all references to one Marduk, or are they just characters coincidentally named the same? Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as stated previously, the article itself was only recently nominated for the same reasons, and the conclusion at that time was that the 'keep' arguments were sufficient to save the article. It is, imo, unfair of you to nominate the same article again, for what essentialy amount to the same reasons behind the previous AFD, albiet written in a more eloquent fasion.

While the discussion seems a bit too fargone by now, I will none the less add my two cents: For unrelated reasons, I had become aware of the name 'Marduke' as a curiously repeating name in fiction. Namely, I noted at the time that he was a summon in Seiken Densetsu 3, was somehow related to the selection of the Evangelion pilots, and simultaneously lent his name to a dual-wielding demigod and a race of singing space warlords. In the end, my experience tells me that this information is significant, as it led me to seek out information on the character to whome the name originaly belonged, is that the sort of scenario wikipedia should strive to avoid? is the accumulation of knowledge so undesirable? --KefkaTheClown 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what's called original research. It's prohibited on Wikipedia for the reasons described on that page. Fagstein 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Except the article you've linked to states quite explicitly that Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages. And since my statement was testimony, rather than an unverifiable theory, I stand by it.--KefkaTheClown 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll even cite my source on that for you... --KefkaTheClown 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Marduk in popular culture is neither a Talk page nor a Project page. Fagstein 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And duely, it would be wrong of me to drop my testimony into the article itself. However, AFDs are projects, rather than articles. --KefkaTheClown 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Comment: To summarise here, and to (try) clear up the confusion, Kefka's just stating his reasons why the article should be kept.

To Kefka: however, for the article to be kept, this claim would have to be in the article, and with a source (as indicated in the NOR policy you have cited). It is not enough for you to mention it here. Kimchi.sg 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The basis for the article is original research. Unless this can be shown to be not true, the article will have to go. Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my intention was to provide an example of how the page in question (and truly, any 'x in popular culture' page out there...) would be put to service, and not to imply that this would be the sole excuse to keep the article around, which seems to be the way it was interpreted. An another note, does the material not count as a source? I mean, if we're going to rely on a published work to verify that say... Marduk is referenced in Septerra Core, can't we cite the game itself as a source? Anyway, I'm too sick to argue the point, I still think that the article should stay, but uppon reflection, I don't see a reason for it not to be merged with the Marduk article proper.--KefkaTheClown 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think using the game itself can't be used as a source. The only thing is we'd have to show that the name "Marduk" is actually a reference to Marduk and not a coincidentally chosen name. Fagstein 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I just followed the link and found it interesting. Why delete it?
• Keep, same as before. What's changed about Marduk's notability since last time? Jimpartame 07:18, 17 May 2006 (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.