Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Jung 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Jung in popular culture

Carl Jung in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article, like plenty of other in popular culture type articles contains a lenghty of unsourced trivia material Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V--JForget 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant info to Carl Jung Giggy _U^CP 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think the nominator is on to something here. All "in popular culture" articles should be judged individually, but it's 4 for 4 so far. The worth of an IPC article is inversely proportional to the number of references. Mandsford 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as another directory of loosely associated items. The thing listed have nothing in common other than some reference to Jung and the article tells us nothing about Jung, the fiction from which the references are drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. Otto4711 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with others' rationale for deletion. The article has no references and a lot of the entries are loosely-related trivia at best. — Sam 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not just trivia but an article which demonstrates cultural significance of Carl Jung and expands both his article and the articles that are mentioned Guycalledryan 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is nearly entirely a trivia list, unsourced to boot: someone famous was treated by someone else's student, someone's influenced someone else's lyrics, etc. I don't think there's much (if anything) left to merge, but most biographies have a legacy type section to which presumably anything important and sourceable could be added. Carlossuarez46 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge lots can go, and everything needs to be properly sourced but it's definately interesting enough to merge with the main article. - Modernist 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The text used to be part of Carl Jung, actually. I moved the text to its own article because it was too mammoth of a section for the article's size. If it is to be merged, it needs to be heavily picked through and trimmed, with an emphasis on high-quality references.— Sam 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I agree, this needs to be trimmed and it needs good references, while having quite a bit of interesting and worthwhile material worth putting back into the main article. Modernist 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Although this is my opinion, I don't think Carl Jung is as prominent in film, TV, cultural depictions, and steampunk as many other famous people (like Freud). Bulldog123 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've saved the text in my userspace so that substantial entries, when sourced, can be merged back into Carl Jung if this article is to be deleted. — Sam 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment When I see an article with cultural connections drawn to Herman Hesse, Siddhartha, Steppenwolf, Demian, James Joyce, Finnegans Wake, Joseph Campbell, George Lucas, Star Wars, Frederico Fellini, La Dolce Vita, Aura-Soma, Stanley Kubrick, Laurens van der Post and other stuff it gets my attention, and I really think it might actually be compellingly interesting, that is if the cruft could be eliminated and the really good stuff be elaborated on, edited and expanded. As it should be. Modernist 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Plantocal 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike Freud who inspired John Huston to make a movie about him starring Montgomery Clift and Susan Kohner there hasn't been a movie called Jung. However this article in addition to my previous comment also references Apocalypse Now, Francis Ford Coppola, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Tom Wolfe, Ken Kesey, the Merry Pranksters, Ted Hughes, Alice Walker, not to mention the Jungian analytic sessions Jackson Pollock underwent during the 1950s that can be added. I think this all should be merged into the main article. This is an encyclopedia of information above all. Modernist 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly some unsourced trivia, plus the fact that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I fail to see how this enhances the Carl Jung article. (→O - RLY?) 02:17, 17 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.