Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla 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 fire-breathing keep. Or maybe just a regular keep. It might be time for a more centralized debate on the notability of "in popular culture" articles, since they keep coming to AFD. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godzilla in popular culture

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

An unsourced trivial list of Godzilla mentions isn't a suitable article. The important mentions should be in the Godzilla article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Keep Godzilla is almost culturally significant enough to overcome my objections, but not quite based on discussion here. JJL 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - the usual directory of non-associated items. The momentary presence of Godzilla or the appearance of a clip from a Godzilla movie in the background of a TV show or the mention of the word "Godzilla" in a book or TV show or song does not mean that there is any relationship between the items in which the mention appears. "Someone said 'Godzilla'" is not a theme. Otto4711 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep items are associated, and godzilla related popular culture is transnationally significant and notable. this is not about having a theme, it is about having notability and a relationship. My concern is that this will be an immense list though and may need sublists.--Buridan 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Items are associated - what is the association between, say, the film Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead and Rob Halford's song "Made in Hell"? How are these things linked to each other other than by the inclusion of the word "Godzilla" in both, and what is your source for this association? Otto4711 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment obviously someone hasn't studied mereology or set theory.... to be related to one thing, to hold one thing in common, is to have an association. this is an especially strong one as it has a unity of reference, there is but one godzilla, and these all refer to it. whereas something like books of dorothy parker would be weak as both books and dorothy parker exist nominally in plurality... you see it is not the inclusion of the word 'godzilla' but the direct reference to the transnational cultural icon godzilla that matters. you are looking at them as spurious relations, like you could substitute 'dorothy parker' for 'godzilla' and still have the same meaning and list. If that were the case, then I would agree that it is an unassociated list, however, I think we both agree that doing the 'dorothy parker' to 'godzilla' switch, would not work for these and it demonstrates that there is a substantive relation.--Buridan 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Even if there is some association between items that just happen to include a particular word or phrase, the standard for inclusion here is that the association not be a loose one. It is monumentally unreasonable to contend that the association between the items on this list is anything other than loose. Otto4711 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • no, not nonsense. If there is a significant difference in human understanding between the term provided (godzilla) and a random term(dorothy parker), then the relationship is also significant and likely worth noting. Here we have a clear situation where the actually thing that these disparate things are attached matters in the way that you understand the things listed. If it were not so, I would agree with you. also, claiming 'nonsense' to logic and wp:common is not a generally a good strategy. Granted I will admit some of the things on the list are likely going to be less strongly associated to the central relation, but that many of them are very strongly related is what justifies the keep, the rest are issues for cleanup.--Buridan 16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I said "nonsense" because I thought that saying "bullshit" would be considered uncivil. But a fertilizer by any other name, I guess. For all of your talking in circles, you have yet to establish that the mere mention of a single word in a two-hour movie means that the movie is in any way meaningfully associated with a song that mentions the same word in its lyrics. The film is not about Godzilla in any meaningful way, the song is not apparently about Godzilla in any meaningful way and the association "they have the same word in them" is not meaningful. Nor have you demonstrated that someone's use of the words "Dorothy Parker" is any more or less significant than the use of the word "Godzilla." Otto4711 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • are there things in the list that are tied to godzilla in a meaningful way? yes. are they notable, yes. is everything as meaningful as anything else, no. see, we agree, but I don't choose strawman examples to illustrate my point. My point is clear, that the list has a solid point of association. Your position is that it doesn't, which is clearly false based on my argument. --Buridan 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Selectively merge individual items from this list on the Godzilla page, and preserve the rest on a subpage of Talk:Godzilla for further discussion. If films such as Bambi Meets Godzilla and the Blue Öyster Cult song are worthy of articles, they also ought to be at least mentioned in the article in chief. As for the rest, they should be preserved for future discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I support this idea. The new page should probably be renamed Impact of Godzilla on popular culture or something similar to stop it from turning back into listcruft, though. shoy 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge with Godzilla. Cut. Cleanup. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep, as even books have been written on this subject, such as IN GODZILLA'S FOOTSTEPS: Japanese Pop Culture Icons on the Global Stage written by university professor. I'll add references/external links to the article ASAP. In addition to the fact that reliable references exist and that even our website's founder thinks we "should relax and accomodate" each other with articles, this particular articles concerns a pop culture icon and the well-organized list format demonstrates the extent of Godzilla's influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The existence of a book on "Foo in popular culture" does not mean that a laundry list of every appearance of Foo in every everything ever is a worthwhile article. Your quote from Jimbo Wales is wildly out of context. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. This has nothing to do with whether or not we "wish" people wouldn't create laundry lists of passing references to things. It has to do with whether this particular article meets all relevant policies and guidelines. Your blatant appeal to authority notwithstanding, this article does not meet the relevant policy WP:NOT. Otto4711 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
More than just one book or reference exists, though:
Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Spamming the AFD doesn't change the simple fact that a bare list of times someone said "Godzilla" on TV does not get past WP:NOT#DIR. Nor is WP:NOT#PAPER a free pass for articles that do not pass relevant policies and guidelines. You know this so I have to question your repeated citing of it. Otto4711 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How is that "spamming the AFD"? He went and did some research, which is something I'd like to see from more AFD regulars. Besides, the current state of the article is generally irrelevant. This is a clean-up situation, not a deletion situation. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are some more sources which may be helpful:
  • Keep Strong subject, and I consider the arguments that "X in popular culture" articles are inherently deletable as flawed as ever. Artw 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is an interesting article. Needs work but notable enough. Bacchiad 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ...Irony is yummy.--UsaSatsui 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep barely notable but it is notable. ILovePlankton(L—n) 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Godzilla has been influential on culture, but this is the run of the mill "x in popular culture" article that is composed mostly of mentions of "x" in movie and TV dialogue. It's comparable to the "Beethoven in Popular Culture" IPC article that referred to the St. Bernard movies. Mandsford 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - ludicrous article given that Godzilla doesn't exist outside of popular culture. How on earth can one have an article about a pop. culture phenomenon's pop. cultural significance??? Infinite regress anyone? Bigdaddy1981 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not inconceivable. There is plenty of critical analysis about Godzilla's cultural influence and role as a Japanese icon – enough so that we could probably develop an independent fork. I do agree that the current article needs a lot of work, and maybe a new title, but that's outside the realm of AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is scholarly work done on Godzilla but that doesn't change the fact that Godzilla himself is a pop. culture figure. If we had an afd on an article on scholarly work on Godzilla I'd agree with your argument but to me this seems an unneeded extension - surely these things (if notable) should be in the main Godzilla article. Bigdaddy1981 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As Zaga says, it's not inconceivable that a pop culture creation can have a separate influence on culture beyond its original appearance. Godzilla is not exactly the best example, since there have been so many Godzilla movies besides the original. On the other hand, there are some fictional works that appeared once-- for instance, "The Stepford Wives" --which became more famous in later references than they were originally. As another commentor notes below, this type of "references 'n mentions" trivia would usually be fine as part of the parent article (which I would say is true about the hypothetical Stepford Wives example). Mandsford 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • General comment about "x in popular culture" nominations: Why are these even brought to AFD? Every one of these articles could, at the very least, be trimmed and merged to another article. I don't see why we need deletion tools to deal with these pages. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Some people just really like deleting things. Artw 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And some people understand that "I saw a thing in a thing" is not a basis for an encyclopedia article or section. Otto4711 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But some of these items are substantial enough to be mentioned somewhere. I'd be satisfied with a merge, but outright deletion just seems to be a lazy solution. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Godzilla.. --UsaSatsui 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with the Godzilla article. Godzilla is by definition popular culture to begin with, so why two articles need to exist is beyond me. This kind of article is also, as I've said before, a magnet for people playing "I Spy" with appearances of the entity in question. At most, the best-sourced of these I Spy results should be in the main Godzilla article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Zagalejo. This is definitely a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thorough rewrite and keep I usually don't agree with the "X in popular culture" lists, because they are to hard to manage and there is usually little merit in managing them anyway, but I have to agree with the "keep" votes here. Godzilla is a major pop-culture icon, and a user above has come up with more than enough verifiable sources to prove this. My suggested strategy for this article would be destroy and rebuild - there is enough material out there to make this into a real article, not just a list that will inevitably beckon inane aditions of the type: "X character in Y movie says 'Godzilla' at one point". TomorrowTime 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean, maybe merge if needed... but don't delete I like the idea of this article. It needs to be purged of a lot of things, but the theory is there. If it doesn't make the cut I'd like a chance to try and merge it in to an existing Godzilla article.--Torchwood Who? 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean. I say this not just because I created this article, but because the Godzilla article is bloated enough on its own and Godzilla's impact on culture outside of his own films is a topic worthy of discussion; as was already mentioned, many books have been written on the subject.

K00bine 10:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Per ample preceedent of how the community views "in popular culture" articles [1]. This is nothing but trivia, and if you want/need to explain why Godzilla is important in popular culture, do it on the main Godzilla page, not this cruft trivia spin-off. Dannycali 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Godzilla has clearly shaped popular culture by an non-insignificant factor. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles examples more then show this. Fosnez 09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Godzilla disambiguous page alone lists plenty of articles on wp and there are books on the subject. The article is a list in dire need but deleting is not the help it deserves. Fix it through regular editing. Benjiboi 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Impact of Godzilla on popular culture and then clean up to fit that topic. The added external links added are a start, but the lists could use prosing, or at least the more important items converted to prose by way of providing context. —Quasirandom 23:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Severe rewrite, I think it needs to be written as an encyclopedic article discussing Godzilla's impact on pop culture and then have a few examples here and there. Unless there are other pages like this one for other topics in which case leave it as is. Unfortunately the only thing I have to base it on is Wookiepedia's Star Wars references page but needless to say they aren't wikipedia.--Anguirus111 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete kill all pop culture articles in the face. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • All pop culture articles? This isn't Britannica. ;) Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Real helpful SWATJester... Fosnez 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable subject, proper list. Article needs work. No reason to delete. Wikidemo 13:52, 9 October 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.