Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue in human 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Dekimasuよ! 10:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue in human culture

Blue in human culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only criteria for inclusion in this article is that the word "blue" be in a title, or that the color be present. There is very little explanation as to the significance of the color in the factoids; they are things like On Star Trek medical and scientific personnel wear blue uniforms; "Big Blue" is a nickname for IBM; and Bands called "Blue" include an American group and a British musical group: the American rock group Blue and the British boy band Blue. Any sections which appear relevant or coherent (perhaps religion, and perhaps symbolism) can be merged back to the main article. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, everything ever concieved by humans that is in some way related to the colour blue is not an encyclopedic topic. If even 1% complete it would be length of a small novel. We might as well have articles on Circles in human culture or Metal things in human culture. And how many non-human cultures are there?--Nydas(Talk) 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There's always those Vulcan science officers.... Dekimasuよ! 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete almost nonsensical. JuJube 12:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable trivia list.--JyriL talk 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created it by splitting a big section from Blue. With the section merged in, it would be too big, at least 50KB. Georgia guy 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the standard reasons that X in pop culture type articles usually die - the article is nothing more than a laundry list of trivial appearances and does nothing to treat the topic in the title, such as, what is the history of X in culture, how is X usually used in culture, etc, with perhaps a few examples to back it up. This aricle is not that. Worse than most of these types of articles, blue is pretty ubiquitous, and a list would be unmaintainable, anyway. Arkyan • (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and an absurd, flagrantly unmaintainable list. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do think that an encyclopedic article could be written about the color blue and how it is used in various cultures, but this appears to just be a list of things with the word "blue" in them.22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Chunky Rice 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article should be kept because all the other major colors have a "[the color] in human culture" section and it would be inconsistent for a major color like blue not to have such a section. However, it could be edited to be less lengthy. Keraunos 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To me, that's really more of an argument to delete those other sections, than keep this one, if they're all in the same condition. Chunky Rice 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The other "[the color] in human culture" sections are NOT in the same condition--they are all much shorter. That is the whole point. The "[the color] in human culture" sections should be concise and relevant, not of excessive length like the Blue in human culture section that was so long it had to be exported into a separate article. (P.S. to Dekimasu: Don't forget that Mr. Spock is half human!) Keraunos 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • weak Keep this is not "in popular culture" but "in human culture" a much wider and more sensible concept. There seems to be enough for an article. However, this particular article is disorganized and uncritical, and there is a lot to be said for starting over. DGG 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As an example of what I'm talking about regarding keeping "[the color] in human culture" sections brief, in for example "Blue in Judaism", all that is necessarty is one sentence under "Religion" that says "the color blue is associated with Judaism". Anything more should be in the Blue in Judaism article. This is the way all of the other "[the color] in human culture" sections are written, but for some reason, the "Blue in human culture" section became grossly distended. Keraunos 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is substance here (pop culture items excepted). It would be a pity to loose it all. Some editing though is certainly needed. Buistr 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. After reviewing the continuing discussion, I went into the article and made a major edit. I attempted to take out everything that was simply a dictionary definition of something with "blue" in its title, to limit the article to things that discuss the relevance of blue. I think I was fair in my removals; this is my edit. If I was overzealous, please do a partial revert; there seems to be broad consensus, though, that this was significantly bloated. The main article, blue, is now only 13Kb. Perhaps a merge discussion would be more appropriate at this point. Dekimasuよ! 08:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge. Well done. As it stands now, the article represents a fair portion of the importance of blue in hunan culture without diverging into trivia. I suggest a merge is now a good course of of action, but the section would need to be watched, as people would start adding and re-adding to it like there is no tomorrow. Perhaps a general guidline on the talkpage would be a good idea? And then an html-tag at the head of the "Blue in human culture"-section could advice people to read said guidline before editing?Dr bab 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
      • I have remerged the remaining information and am withdrawing this nomination. Dekimasuよ! 10:54, 11 April 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.