Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra 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. Merge is tempting, but the arguments are strong that we should be avoiding trivia sections. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydra in popular culture

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

Per WP:FIVE, wikipeida is not a trivia collection. This article is just full of trivia. Wikipedia should not be the place to document every time somebody mentions something in a book/tvshow/movie - Some precedent in AFD regarding Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture - Corpx 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is the article trivia, but it's primary focus is video games an the like, which frequently draw from classical mythology. Nothing surprising there. Calgary 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to be a section in the Lernaean Hydra article. Most mythological beings, stories, etc have a section for XX in popular culture; it's factual and, I think, actually quite interesting to see how those archetypes are reused in games, books, etc. However, it could be edited considerably for length to condense it down. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response Wikipedia has a policy against trivia sections, and this list, even if massively conensed, would be an obvious trivia section. The transition of classical mythology into popular culture is an interesting one, but would be much better served by a paragraph or two in another article than a trivial list. Calgary 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to main Lernaean Hydra article, as Bookgrrl said. Connell66 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all the unsourced trivia, and save the rest. --Haemo 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, summarise or keep, modern references to hydra are relevant to the Lernaean Hydra article. Ideally these references should be briefly summarised in the main article but a separate article might be okay too. Cedars 08:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• An overgrown trivia section should be trimmed down, not expanded into a new page per WP:FIVE, which states that WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as a directory of loosely associated items. The listed items have nothing in common with one another. They don't all even have the Hydra in common, as this list not only captures appearances by the creature but things that are simply named "Hydra" or merely use the word "hydra." This list tells us nothing about the Hydra, nothing about the things that use the word "hydra," nothing about how these things relate to the Hydra or to each other and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to a subpage of the talk page. Forking out "popular culture" sections into separate articles and then deleting those articles is a poor substitute for actual editing. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Place relative pages into Category:Greek mythology in popular culture and delete. To many 'popular culture' articles floating around, when the would do much better and be much more managable in categories. CaveatLector^Talk 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge a very brief summary in continuous prose into Lernaean Hydra. As Siva1979 writes, "We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts." EALacey 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I would say merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging. CaveatLector makes a good point about categories: if the list items have their own pages, they should be in a category; if there are enough items, the category could even be Category:Hydra in popular culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to say keep, because it concerns and Ancient myth, which is certainly encyclopedic and provides enough examples from noteworthy venues to justify inclusion. What I would suggest is more in the way of references and images. Also, I am in the process of cleaning the article up in terms of organization, references, internal links, italicizing titles, etc., so please at least allow for some time to clean up to see if it improves. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I still think the list is pure trivia and a violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is still being improved with images, reference, internal links, etc. Definitely not mere trivia, because the persistence of the Greek myth in Western culture is indicative of its strength throughout many centuries. The fact that there are so many references to it show its long-lasting legacy and relevance to world culture and is therefore absolutely encyclopedic. As for WP:FIVE, an ancient myth that has influenced various aspects of popular culture for many, many years is definitely encyclopedic; verifiable sources can and are starting to be provided and the article does not attempt to force any one point of view on readers; the article contains free content edited by many different editors; the article seems to have had a pleasant edit history with not much in the way of edit wars from my glance; and it is a bold, interesting article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete little different than other popular culture articles deemed by consensus to be non-encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I again request some patience on this one as efforts are being undertaken to improve the article. Please note that in addition to my edits, User:Michael Hardy has also made several edits to improve the article in the past couple of hours. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are far too many of these 'pop culture' articles, and would stress that we shouldn't keep this JUST because its a classical in nature (and I'm a Classicist!). The enduring nature of Greek mythology and culture is better displayed through a category, I think. It is much easier to access and provides a lot more research opportunities. CaveatLector^Talk 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that there are not enough articles of this nature, because, while I agree that many of the existing ones can and should be improved with sources and images, listing the many places in which an original source, concept, idea, etc. resurfaces throughout the various arts throughout the ages is quite revealing of the topic's importance, not to mention it's handiness for researchers. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am into the Classics myself, but many people and creatures and deities of Graeco-Roman mythology have entered our vocabulary and as such become a quick reference: e.g., someone ugly: Medusa; strong: Hercules; naughty: Bacchus; beautiful: Venus or Helen of Troy. Hydra is little different and resort to the name in different media really doesn't show a pop cultural phenomenon. Is there a book, or journal article out there that discusses that Hydra is a pop culture icon and why we resort to it? how it's used, referenced, etc.? I didn't find one, but if such a WP:RS is found I'd reconsider. But to now, a slew of references is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Let it burn in wikihell. And please target the one in Charon (mythology): I find it really off-putting. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For comparative purposes and as a possible means of a compromise solution, I temporarily merged some of the article into the main hydra article. Please look over this version and see if it would work better in the article or a separate article. Feel free to revert the edit to the main article if necessary, but I just wanted to see what it could like and show others what it could look like as well. Please see possible temporary edit at Lernaean_Hydra#Hydra_creatures_in_culture and discuss what you think; I don't know what more I would have to add at this point. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia and listcruft.--JForget 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; and this isn't any better merged back to the main article as it has just been. Examples like In Tenacious D's "Wonderboy," Jack Black says "There's the Hydra. Pull out your broadsword. Slice his throat. Grab his scrote" or The band Green Lights use the term Hydra-rock to describe their sound have no encyclopedic value anywhere. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles says he is attempting to improve the article, but the only apparent changes are a huge photo of a roller coaster has been added, and the entire (slightly reformatted) Hydra in popular culture article has been copy and pasted into Lernaean Hydra. Masaruemoto 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I added TWO pictures, a couple of references, put titles in italics, corrected some grammar, etc. If you look at the history of the article you will see that I made FIFTEEN edits to that article in order to improve it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I did look at the edit history, every single recent edit. You seem to believe that simply correcting spelling and adding images can save an article that violates WP:NOT. Read the deletion arguments, none of them say "delete because there aren't enough images" or "delete because there are some typos in the article". Masaruemoto 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but then why say "the only apparent changes", when there were more than that, because I also added some references, too. And I did read what others argued, and it just doesn't seem to violate "not" in that the list is hardly indiscriminate or not encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep; do not merge. Some of these are probably notable; none of them belong in Lernaean Hydra. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• A note for the closing admin I have begun work taking articles relevant enough and adding them to Category:Greek mythology in popular culture (soon I hope to be renamed "Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture. This is to show how I feel this information should properly be handled. CaveatLector^Talk 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I am a stickler about trivia being paraded as an encyclopedia; far too often they are confused. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 02:24, 17 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.