Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix 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 keep While I might have closed this as no consensus, the article contains some good references. Obviously OR should be removed if possible, but that can be dealt with separately by editing. Assertions that all articles of the form "_ in popular culture" by nature violate Wikipedia policy have been discounted as there is no consensus that that is the case. Pharmboy makes a good point about possible renaming. JoshuaZ 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix in popular culture

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

Long list of trivial references. The referenced examples of antiquity have nothing but the fact that they are mentioned. No further understanding or analysis, all of which is contained in phoenix's already excellent sections on the myth and usage. Delete as an unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO). Eyrian 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 16:23:35

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Previous debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture shows that most articles were deleted, merged, or redirected. We have WP:ATRIV for a reason, so delete this along with all the other trivia pages in Category:In popular culture. Last time I checked, there was over 120 "in popular culture articles", now there's 93. Spellcast 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very selectively merge relevant data in the article in chief on Phoenix (mythology). The Shakespearean references surely belong, as do the uses of the phoenix as allegorical figures or heraldic or national emblems. And, in all likelihood, the Harry Potter version is inescapable. As a figure from mythology and folklore, it is of the nature of the phoenix to reappear under various guises throughout history. Figures such as this do not need separate "in popular culture" articles, as much as they need to not disparage more recent appearances. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A research-relevant list unfairly targeted because of the words "popular culture" in the title. RandomCritic 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename "in popular culture" isn't correct for the article anyway, as it covers more than just 'popular culture'. Change to "Historical use of the phoenix as a symbal" or something shorter to that effect. Is referenced and wikilinked well, and is actually an interesting and well compiled article. Agree with RandomCritic that it may have got tossed in due to the naming. Pharmboy 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One of the few pop culture articles that seems to stay focused, with sufficient information for each reinterpretation of the legend of the Phoenix. Mandsford 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Selective merge per Ihcoyc/Smerdis/whatever. Some of these pop culture references are notable (e.g. the city in Arizona, ditto the Shakespeare, Rowling, etc. references. Some are just trivial and should go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is clearly no consensus that WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO says that we must delete all "in popular culture" articles, which is what the nominators for the deletion of this and many other similar articles seem to be implying. This lack of consensus is evidenced by the fact that WP:NOT (which is supposed to reflect consensus policy) says nothing about trivia or "in popular culture" articles. Also, WP:ATRIV says nothing about deleting articles such as this; on the contrary, it says things like "Do not simply remove such sections: it may be possible to integrate some items ..."; "Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists ..." There has been for a long time, however, WP:CONSENSUS, evident by the number of such articles, the number of editors who have created and contributed to such articles, and how long they have been around, that these articles should exist. The present pop-culture deletion campaign, which has been successful to some extent, might represent a change in consensus, however, without a wider discussion than AfD, this cannot be determined. "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." Perhaps a wider discussion will reveal a consensus that these articles don't belong in Wikipedia; however, they ought to exist somewhere, otherwise Wikipedia will be a perpetual battleground between those who want access to and to contribute to this information, and those who want to get rid of it. A reasonable compromise might be to create a new Wikimedia project (on par with Wikibooks and Wikiquote) to host these types of articles, but until then, these articles ought to be kept here, per WP:IAR, and improved to better comply with Wikipedia policies. DHowell 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per AndyJones and DHowell, it is requirement that AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve. Mathmo ^Talk 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge — no true importance is shown from sources; it's just a subarticle listing appearances. Besides, this list format is the poorest way to handle this type of article. — Deckiller 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:33, 9 August 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.