Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos 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 keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture

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

This is simply a cluttered trivia collection of any mention to Cthulhu Mythos. Just because something is in popular culture, doesn't automatically make this type of list notable. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. That's a lot of trivia, but whether it's worth an article is dubious. No vote.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nomination is in the vein of WP:ITSCRUFT, and characterizing it as a "directory" is not borne out by anything stated within WP:NOT#DIR. However, it might be a good candidate for merging with Cthulhu in popular culture.--Father Goose 07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as is almost always the case with these "...in pop culture" articles, what we have here is a list seeking to capture every time something, no matter how vaguely, makes some reference to the Cthulu mythos or something that in the unsourcable opinion of whatever editor spots it is such a reference. Indiscriminate list and directory rife with original research. "It mentions Cthulu or something that I think sounds kind of like Cthulu" is not a theme. Otto4711 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge as per Father goose. The subject matter and settings of fiction is a notable topic. And it is now firmly established by consensus that popular culture is not necessarily or usually trivia. I just did a quick scan of the university press books published last week on literature--more than two-thirds of them deal with them plot or setting over a range of topics, or with reception and popular culture specifically. Less than a third deal with the traditional author-based topics or discussions centered around the details of a single specific work. People did not discuss these things much 50 years ago, but WP is not a 1960 edition of the Brittanica. Probably should be rewritten in a more paragraph based fashion, and some of the items removed, but those are just editing decisions. We do not delete articles because they could have perhaps been better organized differently. It's time to recognize that the world does include this sort of topic, that it is notable, that with work it can be documented--and stop bringing these nominations. those who think the articles inadequate -- and I do not really blame them -- should start to work on improving them. DGG (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of your research into what the various university presses are covering would be much more relevant if the mere mention of a thing qualified as either "subject matter" or "settings." You have this weird idea that the simple reference to a thing makes a work in some way about that thing or makes the thing a theme of the work containing the reference and it just is not so. See for example note number three which clearly states that a one-sentence mention in a larger volume does not constitute anything other than trivial coverage. A one-line mention in a two hour film or multi-episode television series is just as trivial. The passing inclusion of a thing that may or may not be named after something that Lovecraft mentioned in the Cthulhu mythos does not create an encyclopedic relationship between it and every other thing that contains a similar passing reference. Lists of in-jokes are not encyclopedic when they're from a standalone series (see recent deletions of indiscriminate lists of such jokes from Seinfeld and Friends, among others). Lists of in-jokes that span series are just as unencyclopedic. Otto4711 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then you should advocate paring back the list to significant instances and mentions (of which there are several), instead of deleting it. AfD is not cleanup.--Father Goose 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Otto, I am not saying that the mention of a particular thing in a particular work is enough to make the thing, the work, or the specific pairing notable enough for an article, which is what WP:N is talking about. WP:N does not talk about content. I am saying that the relationship of a notable thing which is notable in its own independent right, to multiple notable works, each of them notable in its own respective independent right, that this altogether is a notable relationship, and the individual pairings appropriate content as sentences or listings within such a comprehensive article. To illustrate, I do not think an article by itself on the subject of Dagon in Good Omens justifies a WP article by itself, but it is relevant content--and when 50 or so notable sf & fantasy novelists use the theme, then it does become notable. DGG (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, but see, the thing is, you have this tendency to elevate any passing mention of something to the level of "theme" and it just ain't so. A work that includes, for instance, mention of a character passing a store that has the same name as something from Lovecraft doesn't mean that the trivial Lovecraftian mention is a theme of the work. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In general, if there are such mentions, they could be proposed for removal in editing, but it is no reason to delete the article entirely--in this case, most of the items are ones where the theme or background or significance is major--indeed, sometimes central. But in the the academic and critical literature about movies, every individual object included is taken as a deliberate inclusion by the director and analyzed for its purposes, so actual references may indeed talk about it. This is the way that art form works. I agree that in many cases it may be unimportant--a monster in a game may be named without any great thought simply because other games have similar monsters--but this is an editing question. And even if your concept is correct here, it is still no reason to delete this or any other article. DGG (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not think "discriminate" means what you think it means. Otto4711 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. In and of itself, "Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture" is certainly an important and notable enough topic to deserve an article. Whether the current article as it stands is good or not is not the topic of this debate. Regardless of how unsourced or trivial individual individual entries may be, I fail to see how an article like this would not be justified, considering the immense influence that the Cthulhu mythos has had on certain fiction and popular culture at large. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist at all, not articles that need improvement, no matter how large. EldKatt (Talk) 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate when someone actually writes something about Cthulu in popular culture instead of a list of trivia. Note, Cthulhu in popular culture should probably be added to this. - Francis Tyers · 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the uncited parts, but still the only parts that actually have citations are either citing the webpages of myspace bands, webcomics and imdb. Still should be deleted, although at least now it isn't such a monster of a bad article. - Francis Tyers · 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article about the influence of Cthulhu Mythos would be a valid subject, but this is just a list of trivia. bogdan (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a cited article, or merge with Cthulhu in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 11 December 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.