Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambrose Bierce 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. Sr13 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrose Bierce in popular culture

Ambrose Bierce in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia tid-bits on every author you can imagine. To get an idea of the information on this article, here is a sample: "Robert Bloch's short story "I Like Blondes" (published in Playboy, 1956) is constructed around a group of alien bodysnatchers frequenting Earth. The narrator's host body's "name was Beers...Ambrose Beers, I believe. He picked it up in Mexico a long time ago." Bulldog123 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, total trivial mentions, hard to reference. The example stated by this nom is a perfect example of how ludicrous this list is. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • At least some of the data on this page should be merged into Ambrose Bierce's article in chief; the business about Robert W. Chambers should belong there (this, in turn, was borrowed into H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos). So also should be the observations about the films made of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. Doesn't Bierce put in an appearance in the Riverworld novels? All of these things are noteworthy IMO. I'd call a subsection of the page "Legacy" or "Influence" to try and keep it relatively focused. The rest can safely be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and merged the information I thought was worth merging into Bierce's article, and added a couple of references. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say to merge any sourced info to Ambrose Bierce, but what should really be done is putting these references into a meaningful paragraph or two. --Fang Aili talk 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no independent references. --Eyrian 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per trivia collection (WP:5) Corpx 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and divide into two articles: Ambrose Bierce as a fictitious character and Adaptions of works by Ambrose Bierce; one or both of these might fit in Ambrose Bierce.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The claim that this is unsourced is pedantry; the source for the appearance of Hastur and Carcosa in the King in Yellow is the King in Yellow; the source for his appearance as a character in Lost Legacy is the novella itself. Publication details, including the ISBN for a reprint of the Chambers can be found in the articles linked to. (I agree that the claim that Victorious Opposition comes from Bierce does need a source; but the best solution to that is probably to look at the front matter; the epigraph may well be "MANICHEISM, n. The ancient Persian doctrine of an incessant warfare between Good and Evil. When Good gave up the fight the Persians joined the victorious Opposition." -Bierce.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; it is not pedantry, it is policy. No one is denying that these references in popular culture exist, but reliable, third party sources are inherently difficult to come by in this IPC articles, and this one is not any different. That a script or a novella proves the reference's existence is immaterial to the fact that there are no sources to provide proof that these trivial laundry list articles, including this one, are important to popular culture. María (críticame) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: So here's the problem. I added what I thought was most relevant from this list to the Ambrose Bierce article, including his influence on The King in Yellow and how his inventions made it into the Cthulhu mythos through these connections. This was sourced to two reliable, third-party sources: an essay on the mythos by August Derleth, and a reference book on Lovecraftian lore to which S. T. Joshi, among others, has contributed. This information was removed by another; despite third party references noticing these influences and connexions, it is still "trivial" in some eyes. So long as this sort of thing continues, keeping these sorts of articles in some form or another will remain the best option among several flawed ones. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • split as suggested but in practice it would be simpler just to write the new articles. Why waste time trying to answer bot-written arguments? DGG (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop the personal attacks. --Eyrian 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it's better to be robotic than inconsistent. What is the big difference between the trivia on this page and the trivia on Cultural Depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, where you had fewer "conditions" for deleting? It makes little sense to me. Bulldog123 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced, trivial references that violate WP:NOT#INFO. That the author "lives on through continued appearances in today's culture" goes without saying, but any incredibly important depictions can be merged into the "Legacy and influence" section at Ambrose Bierce. María (críticame) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As Yllo points out, anything that is of more than trivial interest can be part of the "Legacy and influence" part of theAmbrose Bierce article. Mandsford 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2007 (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.