Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem 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 Delete, not encyclopedic, fails WP:V. Until(1 == 2) 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golem in popular culture

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

Trivia without analysis, often sharing little more than the name with the myth. No cited analysis for those seeking an understanding of its popular evolution. --Eyrian 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is woefully overgrown. The most notable authors, such as Isaac Bashevis Singer, should be mentioned in the main Golem article. Shalom Hello 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per another one of the neverending list and cases of listcruft trivia IPC articles .--JForget 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, part of the seemingly never-ending stream of culturecruft. Realkyhick 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep after severe pruning of trivia. A quick Google found a couple reviews of Golem in pop culture. [1] [2] Seems like more sources for analysis would be readily available for interested editors. Canuckle 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not opposed to some article about Golems in popular culture. However, it should be a short section in Golem, not a laundry list of trivia like this one. --Haemo 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article needs trimming, but there is a WP:RS, Folklore magazine that has a 14-page article on the subject. Amazon shows a couple of books using the legends of the Golem to illustrate fears of biotech, etc. It's a lesser-known Frankenstein, but not a wholely unnotable one. I am willing to concede that there is a "pop culture" aspect to Golem that reliable sources note. As for the quality of the article, that's not a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What do those (very interesting) articles have to do with this current bag of trivia? Was the search for them aided in any way by its existence? Vote on the article as it is, not as it might be. --Eyrian 04:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Current content is an editing matter and not for AfD. The potential for the article and the appropriateness of the topic is what AfD is for.Canuckle 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think Golem#In_popular_culture covers this topic enough. This article is just trivia in the current form. Someone could userfy this page and fix it or maybe even more it into the subspace of the main article? Corpx 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless trivia. There is already a Golem article with a popular culture section that says all that needs to be said about this topic. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whatever the decision, Golem (disambiguation) might also factor in the tidy-up. I have found the dismbig page a good dumping ground for WP articles that are associated only by the name. Canuckle 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46. A notable subject, though the article needs work obviously. --Mantanmoreland 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and tidy up per Carlossuarez46. Remember that AfD is about whether an article on a given topic should exist at all, not whether you like the current article on a topic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, a laundry list of mostly trivial references. The most notable ones should be mentioned in the existing Golem#In popular culture and this article should be deleted. Crazysuit 18:42, 29 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.