Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marduk in popular culture/archive

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 of the debate was keep. - Turnstep 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marduk in popular culture

Comment: Reversing early closure. No consensus for speedy keep or early closure -- not even close -- and "I don't like the nominator's reasons" is not grounds, either. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article was split off from the main Marduk article as a way to clear out the cruft. I wish it had never been created in the first place. It's not encyclopedic, and it's an indiscriminate collection of information. This kind of trivia from juvenalia like video games and role playing games needs to go. I also take issue with the title where it says "in popular culture." Whose popular culture? It's not mine. Some people may think that just because something is name-checked in mass market corporate produced entertainment, it's important, but I don't. Brian G. Crawford 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not all is cruft. Black metal band is ok, for example. I say, cut out 90% and slight keep as an other-uses disambig on Marduk. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or at least merge with Marduk. Unfortunately, wikipedia isn't "your" encyclopedia, so "your" popular culture isn't the standard. --Cheapestcostavoider 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch! Be nice! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment was purely responsive to the line, "Whose popular culture? It's not mine," which is irrelevant to an AfD debate. Personal preferences don't determine what stays in. --Cheapestcostavoider 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, Cheapestcostavoider, quit being a dick. That kind of comment makes me want to put a hex on you, such that all your bodily orifices seal shut. Share your opinions on the article, not me. Brian G. Crawford 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Double-Ouch! BE NICE!!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks, people! Morgan Wick 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but worst case, merge back. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the list seems to large to merge back into Marduk. Dspserpico 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It does seem rather large ot merge Delete After Considering it i'm changing to delete does not seem very notable. Aeon 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Avoid historical bias. If someone started an article analyzing depictions of God or Buddha in popular culture, there'd be no desires to delete those. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and trivial. I'd vote to delete a god or Buddha in popular culture article too. :-) While an essay or book may give examples of the topic's appearance in popular culture, it is usually to prove a point or make an observation. This article is simply a list, which makes the examples trivia. Kjkolb 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete outright (no merge) as unencyclopedic, trivial, and being a loose collection of refs that look more coincidental than telling. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the most significant ones, terminate the rest -- Hirudo 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; whether or not Brian likes it, this pop culture is familar to millions. It also so happens that if it's deleted or, worse yet, merged, these references will all get added back to Marduk, swamping that article and annoying people who are getting their changes reverted and those doing the reversion.--Prosfilaes 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Crawford, just because you personally dislike something or find it "juvenile", that doesn't make it non-notable. Redxiv 07:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no valid reason given for deletion as opposed to clean up.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Marduk. The Marduk article isn't overly long so I don't see any reason why this was forked. Failing a merge, I would like to see the article kept. NoIdeaNick 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb; I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the items with articles made into a disambig page. ergot 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, or Merge. For lack of convincing arguments againsed doing so. --KefkaTheClown 17:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Sean Black and Redxiv. Joe 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Marduk. Like Kjkolb stated it's mostly trivia, but as a footnote in an article that's not really so bad. Maybe cut out the ones with the least substantial ties that just happen to use the name. 71.10.116.45 08:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ugh. This discussion has completely gone off its rails. It seems that the Gundam delegation has shown up here to contest this AfD simply because I nominated it. Another user is quite possibly pissed because I had to tell him that a DVDA is physically impossible. Others seem to feel that they're speaking for the Great Silent Majority of couch potatoes who love articles peppered with references to video games and TV shows aimed at the younger demographic. It's hard to assume good faith when others would rather attack me personally than address the question of whether this entry is an indiscriminate collection of information. Brian G. Crawford 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP, casting aspersions on others' motivations is not a good way to win friends and influence people. Nominating articles for deletion simply because you aren't part of the cultural group that wrote those articles isn't either. Iceberg3k 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and note, that because we work by consensus, the pop culture of the whole matters, not your individual slice of it. -M^ask 02:44, 30 April 2006 (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.