Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. It's either merge or delete (definitely not keep), and given the comments, I think delete is a stronger argument. Proto ► 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aleister Crowley in popular culture

Aleister Crowley in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A meaningless collection of WP:TRIVIA about Aleister Crowley. This should be deleted as an article bound to be an indiscriminant collection of information per WP:NOT, and because it is not, and will never be, properly sourced and fact checked. The Aleister Crowley article already mentions that Crowley crops up here and there in music, film, and print, but none of the items in this list of trivia would bear mentioning in the article. (Yes, I read them all.) Many of them merely mention characters named "Crowley", or things rumored to take Crowley as inspiration. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles are a bad idea. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - directory of barely related items, almost uniformly lacking references and entirely lacking any real-world context. This list is so bad, it gathers items that aren't even related to Crowley because someone somewhere thought once that maybe Crowley was pictured when he wasn't. Otto4711 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is useless listcruft, with no criteria for inclusion on the list, and no way to maintain. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely unsourced list of apperances or possible appearances, most with only minmal ties to the subject. None of the entries appear to be externally verifiable through the use of reliable, fact-checked third-party sources. Delete -- saberwyn 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge what can be verified with sources, and delete the rest. Sit back and watch as the section bloats, is split out, then is nominated for deletion again. -- saberwyn 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, sort of the point is to avoid that cycle, by at least having a community action that rejects lists of trivia. But if limited to verified items, at least that addresses one thing. Unless someone steps up and tries to verify these things, though, that's going to consist of about two items. Mangojuicetalk 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge to main Aleister Crowley article, or move to that article namespace as a subpage. --Gwern (contribs) 05:55 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the main Crowley article as he is a legitimate figure in popular culture. I suggest to the nominator that if he/she has an issue with the "in popular culture" article that he/she seek policy change, as to my understanding they are not prohibited so that alone is an invalid rationale for deletion. In this case, however, a merge is a better idea. 23skidoo 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I for one strongly oppose merging. It is unencyclopedic trivia that would do nothing but detract from the main article. Otto4711 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Wickedest Man In The World but only after a substantial trim to a handful of meaningful and verifiable entries. Alternatively delete it and have the Crowley article build up a tightly controlled verifiable popular culture section. MLA 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Alf photoman 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and I strongly oppose the merge of this info. It would cause the trivia section to dominate the guy's article Fundamental Dan 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge sourced material, delete the rest, as per the above. I share Mango's concern that we'll just see it again shortly, but I'm not sure that's avoidable with a topic of such notoriety. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete These messy lists of references have no place in an encyclopedia, either as part of an article or as stand-alones. They are research notes rather than article sections and should be replaced with structured paragraphs (though in many cases outright deletion wouldn't be much of a loss). Cloachland 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find a single thing on the list that is notable enough (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). The fact that it is impossible to verify or properly maintain it just makes the decision even easier. Merging it wouldn't change anything, just make the main article worse. Pax:Vobiscum 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Merge. 66.91.214.167
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.