Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and 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. Sr13 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar and popular culture

Knights Templar and popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - another laundry list trivia dump of a loosely associated items which have nothing in common beyond the presence of or mention of or reference to the KT. This does not inform us about the Knights, the fiction from which the references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. Oppose merging any of this to any other article as it is just as undesirable there as in this article. Otto4711 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I am concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. I will see what I can do with some of these to improve them as well. I also suggest a more general discussion on whether or not these are encyclopedic at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture instead of all these nominations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • These so-called "dicussions of encyclopediality" will merely culminate in a battle between inclusionists and deletionists, so no. Bulldog123 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, lacks any of the meaningful real-world analysis that Wikipedia requires. --Eyrian 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But is it possible that there meaningful, real-world analysis on this topic does exist out there? Canuckle 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. But this list of trivia would do nothing to hasten its incorporation. --Eyrian 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then delete the trivia on sight, keep what's notable and sourced. Flag it if it needs sources and mention the trivia policing on the talk page. If the remains are sparse, discuss merger/redirect on the article page. Is this more work for an individual than typing in Delete on an AfD? Yes. Does it foster collaboration? Yes. Does it avoid AfDs? Yes. Canuckle 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that these whole articles are problems. It's not like there's some glowing core of beautiful analysis surrounded by trivia; it's trivia all the way down. --Eyrian 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • True. I helped pull Medusa and gorgons in popular culture out of the trash heap. It was a huge amount of work to add the not-yet-beautiful analysis and it's still incomplete. But AfDs are crude and don't (always) solve the problem. They often just push it around and cause problem for those editors who have invested their time and commitment already. For instance, this Knights area has a legends article but won't have a article or section that lists or analyses real appearances in fiction? Canuckle 00:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO and unsourced listcruft. María (críticame) 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not an article. All "in popular culture" lists should die. Golfcam 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I addressed this in "Runes in popular culture" above. Realkyhick 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep there. The article in chief about the Knights Templar contains very brief mentions in passing about the significance of the Knights to fairly important fictions such as Ivanhoe, Foucault's Pendulum, and The Da Vinci Code. This could be expanded easily with larger explanations of the role of the Knights in each, if only to note that in Ivanhoe they are villains, while later treatments portray them as sympathetic. Also note the article Knights Templar legends; fictional treatments of the Templar theme that don't fit into the main article might still be profitably added here. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA Bulldog123 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is encyclopedic to list and briefly discuss the books and films inspired by this theme; there are a considerable number, of them, some very notable. The bulk of the contents of this particular one is not trivial. There is almost no type of articles about which all would say "all the whatever's should be deleted." WP:ATRIV does not prohibit articles of this sort. Go read it instead of just repeating the name of the link. go read this article, if it comes to that,--and perhaps even follow some of the links. For comparison, I cannot imagine myself ever wanting to look at a an article on Pokemon of any sort, and I have solved the problem of what to do about the myriad articles that abound in WP--I just ignore them. I don't read them, I don't edit them, and I don't try to delete them. I don't make it my mission to save Wikipedia from them. DGG (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Contrary to DGG, this sort of random accumulation of context-free factoids undermines any attempt to cover a topic thoughtfully. Also, if no-one made it their business to save Wikipedia from bad content, it would have collapsed in derision years ago. Abberley2 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- but, DGG, it doesn't even do that. It's just a vague collection of things related to the Templars; no context, no clear association, nothing -- i.e. it's trivia. The simple virtue of having something which looks like, or is named as, or is, a Templar does not make it encyclopedic, and it's definitely not a list inclusion criterion -- and that's what this is; a list. Of trivia. --Haemo 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand "trivia" somewhat differently from the way it was used in these discussions--being about a common subject is not trivial. It's the most important characteristic of something. If some are trivial, they can be removed. DGG (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This might have the makings of a good article IF I could be persuaded that all those knights that we see everywhere really are Knights Templar. There is a distinction between historical knights and the stereotypical guys in shining armor portrayed in film, but do all of these really link back to the Crusades? Maybe, but I think this is just Knights in popular culture, which is either a red link or a blue-link that I've accidentally betrayed to the WikipediaPD. Advice to author-- don't combine "novels and comic books" in the same category. Mandsford 00:24, 26 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)
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.