Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant squid in 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 no consensus. The Community was divided between those who consider this to be a collection of information that lacks coherence and those who think that it should be kept or merged somewhere. I am unconvinced by the argument to merge into Kraken in popular culture since Kraken are mythical creatures, albeit with the giant squid implicated, whereas the giant squid is a real animal. Any merge proposals should take place as post-AfD editorial actions as should pursuing the lack of sources. TerriersFan 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant squid in culture

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics stitched together with original research. This collection of any appearance of a giant squid (or collosal squid, or squid-that-is-not-identified-in-the-fiction as "giant," or creature that is vague and undescribed but someone decided that it must be a squid) tells us nothing about squid, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about the relationahip between them (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merge of any of the information to any other article on squid, giant, collosal or otherwise, as it is just as trivial in another article as it is in its own. Otto4711 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This can safely be deleted because it is redundant to our articles in chief on Kraken and Kraken in popular culture; the Kraken is the usual name of a giant squid when it appears in literature as a sea monster. If anything should be merged, it should go there rather than to any article about the actual molluscs. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge. I'm not sure that giant squids are always called Kraken. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete List of loosely associated topics, just like most of the other IPC articles Corpx 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Kraken in popular culture. SolidPlaid 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 24.176.25.116 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOT#DIR + WP:OR = bad article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I think it should be kept or at least merged with the Kracken page for I and other people I know have used it many a time to find movies,tv,etc that feature this beloved beast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Infamous Dr. Salvador (talk • contribs)
• Avast, to Davy Jones's Locker wi' the fearsome beastie. 'Tis a loose collection o' unsourced scuttlebutt, an' we've got lots of info in the related pages. Arr. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kraken in popular culture. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The material here is notable and sourceable. I see the people who think that the subject of a creative work is not a notable feature of it, or that having common themes or plot motive is a "loose association" are till at it. I think its about the strongest association there can be, and exactly what is meant by encyclopedic content and the purpose of a general encyclopedia. Kraken isnt really that good a merge--that article talks about purely mythological beings, not actual animals. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Giant squid are not the "subject" of the items included in this article. Giant squid are not the "theme" of these items and they are not the "plot motive." The things have no association with each other beyond "it's got a squid in it" and in many cases they don't even share that. Otto4711 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it has a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. Creative works don't use content at random, they use it for the meaningful associations. If there's a few that don't belong, that becomes a question for editing, not deletion. if we deleted every article that had an item of questionable content, there wouldn't be a WP. Trying to judge articles of a particular type that way is exactly what I mean by trying to remove the whole content area from the encyclopedia--on the reason, ultimately, of IDONTLIKEIT.

But let's look at the ones I know about enough to say: For books, 1, 2, and 3, are major plot elements, all memorable & meant to be. There will certainly be references for any theme in Moby Dick. The Watcher is meant to evoke a squid, & there will be refs in the immense literature on Tolkien. for Dr No it's also a significant element. for 5, & 6 its the basis of the plot. 7 & 8 significant element also. 9 is relatively trivial, if I remember right. 10 I dont know the books, 11 is also trivial. 7/11 at least. At least 3 or 4 of the film ones are certainly significant also, and so on. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's got a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. And if a movie has a cell phone or a book has a taxi cab or a TV show has a blue sweater in it there's a reason why that cell phone or taxi cab or blue sweater is in it. That doesn't mean that the existence of the phone or cab or sweater serves to tie the movie or book or TV show to every other book or TV show or video game that also includes a cell phone or a taxi cab or a blue sweater. The assumption you're making, that the presence of a squid or squid-like thing evokes a deliberate and close association between the things, is original research by synthesis, not to mention POV-pushing. Otto4711 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

certainly, for a particular cell phone. But not for cell phones in general--if cell phones in general are used in movies, there are reasons. And if for some reason a particular cell phone did occur in dozens of movies , there would surely be an interesting reason. I don't know if there's an article yet, but the fact that almost all advertisements with personal computers have contained Macintosh computers is actually interesting and encyclopedic and sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• And again, your assumption that there must be an association between things because they share one feature or element in common has no basis in fact. Otto4711 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the element is the significant use in a novel or film, yes. What do you think the study of literature or cinema consists of but the study in historical perspective of the themes and characters and techniques DGG (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the study of it on Wikipedia consists of articles that discuss independent secondary sources that are about the topic of the article. There appear to be no such sources that are about the subject of "Giant squid in culture" or the supposed automatic association between otherwise unrelated items that happen to have a squid in them. Otto4711 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean discuss the topic in the light of secondary sources, not discuss the sources. Just to clarify.DGG (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kraken in popular culture and merge the contents. --Martin Wisse 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another list of unrelated occurrences where a giant squid happens to appear, or be merely referenced. - fchd 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Kraken in popular culture; arguably, the resulting article should be renamed, to indicate that not all giant squids are explictly based on the mythical Kraken. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn topic, every animal that exists has been in "culture" one way or another, does not make for a notable topic and ultimately becomes trivia. Biggspowd 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The GS is a powerful symbol in popular culture and a strong sub-culture exists around it. I can see how the relationships between items might not makes sense to everyone but I assure you that they do to me and many many others. Perhaps the article could do better at explaining this, but after all these are artistic relationships so the best way to understand them is to see specific examples of how artists have used the symbol. As with all art it isn't going to make sense to everyone and that is fine. Personally, it has been a good exercise that this has been flagged for deletion because it has challenged me to think about why I find the symbol so compelling, and the list of references in this article so very interesting and useful. 20 August 2007

• Could you please post some links that discuss the "giant squid sub-culture"? Because I can't say as I'm too familiar with it. Otto4711 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sure thing. From my experience is it a strange mix of people who are fascinated by the biology on the one hand and on the other identify with the pop culture. These people also tend to be into They Might Be Giants if that helps. This page on Laughing Squid is a good example. It includes both links to experts in squid biology such as Steve O'Shea, as well as all kinds of pop culture references. I can't explain to you why these fit so well together in my mind, but they do. That's culture for you! Wicklonious 20 August 2007

• So then, nothing other than a blog. No actual reliable sources attesting to this supposed sub-culture. Otto4711 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• What would you consider to be a "reliable source"? I looks like more than a blog to me, but what do I know. Here's another one showing the community/sub-culture around squid. It is the Octopus News Magazine Online and also covers the range from biology to how cephalopos impact popular culture. Here's the culture forum. Maybe the problem here is that the Wikipedia artical needs to edited to better explain the impact of squid on culture. That doesn't mean it should be killed. Wicklonious 21 August 2007
• Independnt of the sub-culture the basic point is that squid are a symbol that have been used by artists in various ways. Wicklonious 21 August 2007

• So to bolster the blog you post a fansite. Please read WP:RS. These links you're providing do not meet that guideline and your argument here amounts to people like squid. Otto4711 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sources Please see [1] I'll be adding a few , but for the moment let me just quote from Google Scholar "

Kaleidoscopic Nuclear Images of the Fifties MJ Strada - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1986 - Blackwell Synergy... 188 Journal of Popular Culture ... In It Came From Beneath The Sea ( 1955), an irradiated giant squid-turned-carnivore terrorizes San Francisco, ripping apart the ... I think that shows that 1/ the general subject is considered notable and 2/at least some individual items are discussed in RSs. I assume you will now withdraw the AfD. I really dont know what more you could ask for. DGG (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I'm not going to withdraw the AFD on the basis of the existence of a few articles that happen to have both "giant squid" and "popular culture" in them. I can pick any two phrases and plug them into Google and I'll get some hits. "Hitler" and "Pop-Tarts". "Bungee jumping" and "wonder woman". "hard boiled eggs" and "nuclear war". None of this and none of your so-called sources refute the basic premise of this nomination, which is that ther mere presence of a giant squid in something does not mean that the thing has any relation to anything else with a giant squid in it. You make this same mistake over and over and over again. "Existence" does not equal "relationship" and "stuff has squid in it" does not equal "squid in culture." Otto4711 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• And, considering that It Came from Beneath the Sea features an octopus and not a squid, I'd have to say that a "source" that can't get that basic fact right has some issues. Otto4711 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, a few sight-unseen sources do not suffice. --Eyrian 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go read them. i did since yesterday. Even on a preliminary look, I note I did not include them merely on the supposition that the title was significant, but looked for quotes where the actual sentence liked them both in a substantial way. I'll be adding some other things from these articles, since they seem useful. Its a fairly frequently held journal. I do not know what you expect, even when the articles are presented you won't use them. And then you say the source has the facts wrong, and it might, so if there are other sources, just add them and improve the article further. We don't have to show that scholarly sources are right -- we just show that the subject is discussed in major journals. If the scholars discuss this and get it wrong, it's still notable. The standards you use are much too erudite to be useful at wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to Kraken in popular culture. Artw 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge / Redirect. Another extremely poorly-named article. Should have been "Giant squids in popular culture" or something on those lines if it should exist at all. In any case the Giant Squid, which does not go around wrecking pirate ships and such, but might attack a whale for food, is covered well in that article. The Kraken is the legendary monster that grabs hold of sailing ships and drags them under, as seen in the Pirates of the Carribean films and elsewhere. While the two may be similar-looking and real sightings of the one may have led to the mythology of the other, they are very distinct in terms of the "popular culture". The current article confuses the two, by showing a real Giant Squid carcass preserved at a museum, and then images of Krakens attacking ships. Clearly improper. Merge: any "useful" information in the article can be merged either to Giant Squid or Kraken or Kraken in popular culture (with cross-referencing links between them), and then redirect this fell beast to the latter. Then there is Gigantic octopus which is apparently a hypothetical creature yet to be discovered... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

a good argument for redoing the group. I agree they should be redone and possibly rewritten. I don;t see though why you want to merge to Kraken when you agree they aren't Kraken. Obviously a good question to be discussed on the talk pages. Personally, I think the best solution is a merged Squid and Kraken in popular culture. Maybe Octopii as well, per Otto's information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My point was there is really no such thing as a "Giant Squid in popular culture", by definition. If a thing is attacking yer fleet o' pirate ships, or ye olde ocean-going exploration vessels of the middle ages, or any other ships on the seven seas, or Hollywood actors named Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom under the thumping orders of one Davey Jones, and dragging them assunder or whatever, then it is, by definition, a Kraken, and the reader should be referred to Kraken in popular culture. Any useful information in this article that is not already resident elsewhere should be merged into one or more of the other related articles in the group. Again, this article should not, in theory, exist at all; but on the outside chance someone goes looking for it (or it is improperly mentioned and linked in other articles such as the Pirates of the Carribbean movies), then such intrepid voyagers should be gently sent (redirected) to the proper place(s). --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 20:57, 23 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.