Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metatron 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. Majorly (o rly?) 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Metatron in popular culture
Delete as indiscriminate list of trivia about, mostly, Anime and video games. As is usual for articles of this type, this one was created in October last year to remove the irrelevant "popular culture" section of Metatron which is quite a good article. PLEASE don't suggest merging it back there without actually considering how to do so. Mangojuicetalk 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I could go either way on this one, and don't want to vote (yet), but if it is kept, it should be discriminated. In other words, the more trivial references should be removed and then the raw list should be segmented into sub-sections like Anime, Literature, Movies and film, etc. that would at least make it more readable. ◄Zahakiel► 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It could be less completely crappy, I agree. However, per WP:AVTRIV the end goal here has to be an article, not a list of disassociated facts. Unless we at least start on that goal, we aren't making progress: indiscriminate facts will just be added back in again. Mangojuicetalk 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and directory seeking to capture not only every reference to the angel Metatron with no regard to its importance or context, but of anything that happens to be called "Metatron" whether it has anything to do with the angel or not. Strongly oppose merging any of it back to the main article. Otto4711 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- As pointed out by Otto there are actually both direct references to the angle Metatron and other uses such as Metatron Ore, several albums such as Metatron (album) as well as a characters in a number of films, games etc. How about moving it to Metatron (disambiguation) and prune and wikify it according to WP:MOSDAB? --Tikiwont 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question. I agree that most of the passing mentions should be deleted. But should there also be no mention of the fact that he/she/it was featured as a major character in Dogma? Whether we like it or not, actual persons, groups, or concepts are at times notably featured in popular culture. Seeing the word "Metatron" on a poster in the background of a movie obviously has no place in WP, but a major character in a controversial movie? -- Black Falcon 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Characters of similar importance in other fictional universes have had articles written about them, so in theory an article Metatron (Dogma) could be created, although the character was, as I recall, not an especially central one. Also, if someone were to write a coherent article about the Metatron myth in modern times (which is what this article would be if it was trying to live up to its title, rather than being a list of trivia), that reference probably would and should be integrated. Mangojuicetalk 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think the character was sufficiently central to the movie that a Metatron (Dogma) article is justified. However, I believe the Metatron article should have some kind of reference to this. An article about the myth in modern times would be wonderful, but it doesn't exist unfortunately. Although I agree that these "in popular culture" articles need to be purged (and usually deleted), I feel the most important parts should be merged. The question is: how? How do we include the main "popular culture" portrayals of an entity (real or fictional) in the main article without opening the way for a list of pointless trivia? I believe the answer is monitoring: Create "in popular culture" sections in articles, but require that any new entries be sourced by secondary sources, and remove any that are not sourced as such. If a popular culture portrayal was significant enough for someone else to write about it, then it probably deserves mention. -- Black Falcon 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reponse on the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied there as well. -- Black Falcon 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reponse on the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think the character was sufficiently central to the movie that a Metatron (Dogma) article is justified. However, I believe the Metatron article should have some kind of reference to this. An article about the myth in modern times would be wonderful, but it doesn't exist unfortunately. Although I agree that these "in popular culture" articles need to be purged (and usually deleted), I feel the most important parts should be merged. The question is: how? How do we include the main "popular culture" portrayals of an entity (real or fictional) in the main article without opening the way for a list of pointless trivia? I believe the answer is monitoring: Create "in popular culture" sections in articles, but require that any new entries be sourced by secondary sources, and remove any that are not sourced as such. If a popular culture portrayal was significant enough for someone else to write about it, then it probably deserves mention. -- Black Falcon 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Characters of similar importance in other fictional universes have had articles written about them, so in theory an article Metatron (Dogma) could be created, although the character was, as I recall, not an especially central one. Also, if someone were to write a coherent article about the Metatron myth in modern times (which is what this article would be if it was trying to live up to its title, rather than being a list of trivia), that reference probably would and should be integrated. Mangojuicetalk 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments on the talk page (essentially, failure to comply with WP:TRIV). -- Black Falcon 20:16, 7 March 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.
