Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changelings 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 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changelings in popular culture

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

"Hey look, it changes shape!" Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. All important aspects are already covered by the main article. Eyrian 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merging any actual relevant examples to changeling. This is a theme from traditional folklore and folk narratives, and so popular culture examples are quite useful and belong in the article in chief. The "semantic drift" business that muddies the notions of changelings and shapeshifters does not belong, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have attempted to begin the process of re-integrating the most salient material into the article in chief. The instant text here should be moved to a subpage of the talk page per Wikipedia:Subpages for further revision and reference. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge back into Changeling, while removing any references that merely use the word "changeling" without actually referring to folkloric changelings.RandomCritic 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia. Anything useful/relevant/sourced can be added to Changelings article. --Belovedfreak 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and please don't merge back. Bulldog123 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge. One of the most indiscriminate collection of info lists I've seen yet. Unsourced, trivial, and many examples are borderline OR. I see the words "possibly" and "indicates," which are dead giveaways. Even if cleaned up, however, this list is hopeless; take away all minor mentions of Changelings or any poem/work that happens to have a changeling character, and we'd be left with two or three notable items that better belong as short, succinct references in the main article. Wipe the slate clean and begin again, this time with reliable sources. María (críticame) 16:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above. This is one of the worst examples of these types of pages. The sheer number of inferential "possible" mentions is astounding, and only serves to highlight the trivial nature of the page. --Haemo 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- Commenters might want to re-view the list and see if it still qualifies as "hopeless". The number of works with a main character who is a changeling, and where the changelingness is plot-central, is actually far from insignificant when the cruft is deleted. RandomCritic 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As the useful content has already been merged into Changeling, there's no point in keeping this article (except maybe for the usual GFDL issues, but I leave that to others). Rl 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge (although as R1 points out, this has probably already been done). Since there aren't that many folklore stories about changelings, this pop culture list can go back to the original article. Mandsford 18:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 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.