Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgons 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. Sr13 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgons in popular culture

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

• This discussion is now moot. The article is now orphaned, and I am tagging it for speedy deletion. TAnthony 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion has been denied. Otto4711 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Previously merged with Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture, which has since been deleted. For some reason it was restored rather than being deleted as {{db-r1}}. Jay32183 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think this qualifies as a DB-G4; recreated deleted material. --Haemo 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not recreated, as it was a separate article before the deleted article was ever created, and was never moved. DreamGuy 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Here is the AFD for the other article in question. Corpx 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not voting, but whatever the decision is, NONE of the material in this article should go back into the Gorgons entry, which it was clogging up with its trivial nature. Otto1970 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you should vote to keep, because the material (some of it, certainly not all of it) deserves to be somewhere -- I agree not the main article, that's why separate articles are made. DreamGuy 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- so that content can continue to go through the editing process. There is enough valuable content here and it would be wrong to delete everything. Perhaps eventually this page can be winnowed and tightened enough so that it would be worthwhile to include back in the main Gorgons article. But having it separate is the correct thing for now, IMO. Otto1970 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Otto1970, thanks for your consideration on this; please see my new comment below. TAnthony 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's all fine and good to vote delete on these articles, but they need to stay, and will and do stay. This article was an old version of one that got merged into a deleted article, a deleted merged article is not a vote to delete an unmerged copy, so the previous AFD has no bearing on this one. And, frankly, if people who vote delete also do not make an effort to make sure this stuff doesn't get added to main articles then they are causing far more harm than good. Splitting off into separate articles to prevent main articles from being swamped is absolutely necessary. Deleting them will just get them created again in a never ending cycle. Some of the content of this article may be not encyclopedic, but that's a reason to EDIT it, not to DELETE it. DreamGuy 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • When inappropriate content builds up in the main article, under no circumstance do you split it off, you delete it from that article. The better here than there argument is unacceptable. This page should have been deleted along with the previous AFD because when pages are deleted the incoming redirects are supposed to be too, but sometimes admins don't always get them. The usual result when that problem gets noticed is tagging with {{db-r1}}, which leads to speedy deletion. The entirity of the article fails WP:NOT#DIR which is reason to delete it. Jay32183 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete these Gorgon articles seem more like Hydra. Hydra in popular culture anyone? Carlossuarez46 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete that article too. --Haemo 08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Medusa and the gorgons are iconic figures, and some of their uses in fiction are notable, in particular because they are ancient figures that persist in our culture. Perhaps if I trimmed the list of miscellaneous video game references, and rewrote in prose? TAnthony 08:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of loosely associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common with one another beyond the appearacne of a gorgon, or something called "Gorgon" which may not be a gorgon, or the appearance of the word "gorgon." This list tells us nothing about gorgons, the fiction from which the examples are drawn or the world. Otto4711 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Irredeemable, like most "in popular culture" articles. Greg Grahame 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A list of trivia, which contains, for the most part, simple one line mentions of when gorgons appeared on tv shows and movies. There is very little in this article that would constitute a tragic loss if deleted. Resolute 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP is not a place to create multiple trivia-like articles such as this.--JForget 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is clearly an attempt to bypass the recent deletion of Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture by reverting two apparent redirects that previously contained the deleted material, the other one is Medusa in popular culture which should also be listed for deletion. Masaruemoto 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created the new article Medusa and gorgons in popular culture as a prose rewrite of the other Medusa/gorgon popular culture lists that includes what I believe is notable information and excludes the excessive trivial references and minutae of other versions. As I've said above, Medusa and the gorgons are iconic figures, and some of their uses in fiction are notable, in particular because they are ancient figures that persist in our culture.

I am honestly not trying to thwart these discussions or restore deleted material in a sneaky manner; this new article is a new presentation of information and should be considered as such. I am hoping this new article in some form will serve as a compromise, and am suggesting that Gorgons in popular culture be redirected to it. I have put a quick message about notability on its talk page and will join others in policing it for useless additions. TAnthony 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Even though its not a list anymore, its just a bunch of trivia in there. Per Five pillars, wikipedia is not a trivia collection Corpx 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is certainly open to copyediting, but I believe I have eliminated most of the useless trivia like the name of poems, and attempted to tie together references in meaningful ways. The dramatization of these figures is notable in many cases as it reflects, contrasts or diverges from mythology; this is a millennia-old concept that survives today, people! How is this less notable than Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln? I'm sure people in every country but the US couldn't care less that a representation of Lincoln appeared in an episode of Star Trek. TAnthony 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that article should be up for AFD too. I firmly believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to document everytime somebody mentions something in a movie/show/book. I still think that new article is in violation of the five pillars Corpx 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you to a certain degree regarding the prevalence of useless trivia, but there is room for information that can realistically be useful to someone. When I am researching something as a reader, I want to know that Livia was dramatized in I, Claudius, what films were made about the RMS Titanic and yes, some places where Medusa has been portrayed and how the name has come to cannote certain things in our culture. But no, I don't care what Medusa looks like in Castlevania. TAnthony 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is still a directory of loosely associated terms, it just isn't formatted as a list. The problem with these articles isn't that they are in list format. The problem is that they present the idea that these things are interconnected because they all mention something. Changing the format won't fix this problem. Jay32183 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot. The article is now orphaned, and I am tagging it for speedy deletion. TAnthony 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion has been denied. Otto4711 02:07, 13 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.